From 9918693037dce8aa4bb6f08741b6812923486c18 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:26:03 +0200 Subject: Merging upstream version 1.76.0+dfsg1. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- ...laceholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/ui/coherence/negative-coherence-placeholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs (limited to 'tests/ui/coherence/negative-coherence-placeholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs') diff --git a/tests/ui/coherence/negative-coherence-placeholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs b/tests/ui/coherence/negative-coherence-placeholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs new file mode 100644 index 000000000..26d9d84d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/ui/coherence/negative-coherence-placeholder-region-constraints-on-unification.rs @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +// revisions: explicit implicit +//[implicit] check-pass + +#![forbid(coherence_leak_check)] +#![feature(negative_impls, with_negative_coherence)] + +pub trait Marker {} + +#[cfg(implicit)] +impl !Marker for &T {} + +#[cfg(explicit)] +impl<'a, T: ?Sized + 'a> !Marker for &'a T {} + +trait FnMarker {} + +// Unifying these two impls below results in a `T: '!0` obligation +// that we shouldn't need to care about. Ideally, we'd treat that +// as an assumption when proving `&'!0 T: Marker`... +impl FnMarker for fn(T) {} +impl FnMarker for fn(&T) {} +//[explicit]~^ ERROR conflicting implementations of trait `FnMarker` for type `fn(&_)` +//[explicit]~| WARN this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release! + +fn main() {} -- cgit v1.2.3