rust-lang/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
359bfa901b9d8eddbed7b88b6716dbb77b7bfb95
rust/tests/ui/structs/default-field-values/failures.stderr

121 lines
3.7 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Disallow `#[default] Variant {}` regardless of feature flag
2024-12-06 19:50:55 +00:00
error: the `#[default]` attribute may only be used on unit enum variants or variants where every field has a default value
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:49:5
Disallow `#[default] Variant {}` regardless of feature flag
2024-12-06 19:50:55 +00:00
|
LL | Variant {}
| ^^^^^^^
|
= help: consider a manual implementation of `Default`
review comments: rewordings
2024-12-06 19:43:01 +00:00
error: default fields are not supported in tuple structs
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:28:22
Detect `struct S(ty = val);` Emit a specific error for unsupported default field value syntax in tuple structs.
2024-11-26 17:53:00 +00:00
|
LL | pub struct Rak(i32 = 42);
| ^^ default fields are only supported on structs
Reject union default field values
2025-06-16 17:53:44 +08:00
error: unions cannot have default field values
--> $DIR/failures.rs:54:14
|
LL | x: i32 = 1,
| ^
error: unions cannot have default field values
--> $DIR/failures.rs:55:14
|
LL | y: f32 = 2.,
| ^^
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
error[E0277]: the trait bound `S: Default` is not satisfied
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:16:5
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
|
LL | #[derive(Debug, Default)]
| ------- in this derive macro expansion
LL | pub struct Bar {
LL | pub bar: S,
| ^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Default` is not implemented for `S`
|
help: consider annotating `S` with `#[derive(Default)]`
|
LL + #[derive(Default)]
LL | pub struct S;
|
Make error message for missing fields with .. and without .. more consistent
2025-03-27 17:24:06 +00:00
error: missing field `bar` in initializer
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:61:19
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Bar { .. };
Make error message for missing fields with .. and without .. more consistent
2025-03-27 17:24:06 +00:00
| ^ fields that do not have a defaulted value must be provided explicitly
error: missing field `bar` in initializer
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:62:27
Make error message for missing fields with .. and without .. more consistent
2025-03-27 17:24:06 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Bar { baz: 0, .. };
| ^ fields that do not have a defaulted value must be provided explicitly
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
error[E0308]: mismatched types
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:66:17
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(..);
| --- ^^ expected `i32`, found `RangeFull`
| |
| arguments to this struct are incorrect
|
note: tuple struct defined here
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:28:12
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | pub struct Rak(i32 = 42);
| ^^^
help: you might have meant to use `..` to skip providing a value for expected fields, but this is only supported on non-tuple struct literals; it is instead interpreted as a `std::ops::RangeFull` literal
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:66:17
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(..);
| ^^
error[E0061]: this struct takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:68:13
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(0, ..);
| ^^^ -- unexpected argument #2 of type `RangeFull`
|
help: you might have meant to use `..` to skip providing a value for expected fields, but this is only supported on non-tuple struct literals; it is instead interpreted as a `std::ops::RangeFull` literal
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:68:20
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(0, ..);
| ^^
note: tuple struct defined here
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:28:12
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | pub struct Rak(i32 = 42);
| ^^^
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - let _ = Rak(0, ..);
LL + let _ = Rak(0);
|
error[E0061]: this struct takes 1 argument but 2 arguments were supplied
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:70:13
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(.., 0);
| ^^^ -- unexpected argument #1 of type `RangeFull`
|
help: you might have meant to use `..` to skip providing a value for expected fields, but this is only supported on non-tuple struct literals; it is instead interpreted as a `std::ops::RangeFull` literal
Add union with default field values case test In particular, there should be no additional errors (default field values for `union` fields are currently erroneously accepted).
2025-06-16 16:17:32 +08:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:70:17
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | let _ = Rak(.., 0);
| ^^
note: tuple struct defined here
compiletest: Make diagnostic kind mandatory on line annotations
2025-04-05 19:19:56 +03:00
--> $DIR/failures.rs:28:12
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
|
LL | pub struct Rak(i32 = 42);
| ^^^
help: remove the extra argument
|
LL - let _ = Rak(.., 0);
LL + let _ = Rak(0);
|
Reject union default field values
2025-06-16 17:53:44 +08:00
error: aborting due to 10 previous errors
Introduce `default_field_values` feature Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ``` Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users' getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to *always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted. This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the expression relies on a const parameter. Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`: - Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields. - Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values. - Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
2024-08-24 17:22:48 +00:00
Provide diagnostic for `Struct(a, .., z)` expression People might extrapolate from `Struct { .. }` that `Struct(..)` would work, but it doesn't.
2024-11-26 22:28:51 +00:00
Some errors have detailed explanations: E0061, E0277, E0308.
For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0061`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink