rust/tests/ui/panic-runtime/unwind-unique.rs

//@ run-fail
//@ error-pattern:explicit panic
//@ needs-subprocess

fn failfn() {
    panic!();
}

fn main() {
    Box::new(0);
    failfn();
}
[AUTO-GENERATED] Migrate ui tests from `//` to `//@` directives 2024-02-16 20:02:50 +00:00			`//@ run-fail`
			`//@ error-pattern:explicit panic`
tests: use `needs-subprocess` instead of `ignore-{wasm32,emscripten,sgx}` 2025-01-23 16:36:54 +08:00			`//@ needs-subprocess`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 14:58:06 -07:00
			`fn failfn() {`
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . \| xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2014-10-09 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!();`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 14:58:06 -07:00			`}`

			`fn main() {`
Switched to Box::new in many places. Many of the modifications putting in `Box::new` calls also include a pointer to Issue 22405, which tracks going back to `box <expr>` if possible in the future. (Still tried to use `Box<_>` where it sufficed; thus some tests still have `box_syntax` enabled, as they use a mix of `box` and `Box::new`.) Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181. 2015-02-15 09:52:21 +01:00			`Box::new(0);`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 14:58:06 -07:00			`failfn();`
Replace most invocations of fail keyword with die! macro 2013-01-31 17:51:01 -08:00			`}`