-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Don't run cleanups twice in "if true" blocks #10735
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ | ||
// Copyright 2013 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT | ||
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at | ||
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. | ||
// | ||
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or | ||
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license | ||
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your | ||
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed | ||
// except according to those terms. | ||
|
||
pub fn main() { | ||
if true { | ||
let _a = ~3; | ||
} | ||
if false { | ||
fail!() | ||
} else { | ||
let _a = ~3; | ||
} | ||
} |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems not quite ideal to rely on throwing a
pointer being freed was not allocated
malloc error to indicate the bug exists. I would suggest something like the following:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After chatting with @cmr, it might actually be nice to assert that it's dropping at all, just to kill two birds with one stone (i.e. define this test as checking that it drops the correct number of times, rather than checking that it hasn't dropped too many times).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although, come to think about it, this is not quite right as it's making a (probably bad) assumption about where the drops occur. It should probably be something like this instead:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like I'm having a conversation with myself.
After thinking some more, the previous version (with the two asserts) isn't so bad, because that's also checking to make sure that
if true { expr }
behaves like{ expr }
rather than behaving likeexpr
, which seems to me to be the correct interpretation. FWIW, that version (again, the one with the two asserts) passes with this patch applied.