-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
Add regression test for nested replacement ranges in cfg_eval #139286
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
This is just me having a very first glance at this PR and at surrounding context, I'll give this a proper review some other time:
I'm surprised that this test leads to errors (×ばつ "removing an expression is not supported in this position") in nightly-2024年08月15日 which is a few nightlies before PR #128725 (which intro'ed the ICE reported in #129166 (e.g., nightly-2024年09月08日)). Shouldn't it pass in that version to be a proper regression test instead of erroring as in nightly-2024年09月09日?
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ | ||
| // Regression test for #132727 | ||
| // | ||
| // This ensures we correctly handle nested replacement ranges in cfg_eval. | ||
| // PR #129346 included a code simplification in collect_tokens that | ||
| // caused a regression with nested cfg attributes, which was reverted in #132587. | ||
|
|
||
| //@ check-pass | ||
|
|
||
| #![feature(cfg_eval)] | ||
| #![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)] | ||
|
|
||
| fn nested_cfg_attributes() -> u32 { | ||
| // This test reproduces the core issue: nested cfg replacement ranges | ||
| // The outer #[cfg_eval] processes the inner #[cfg] attribute, | ||
| // creating a nested replacement range situation | ||
| #[cfg_eval] #[cfg(not(FALSE))] 0 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Another test case with more complex nesting | ||
| fn multi_level_nesting() -> u32 { | ||
| let result = { | ||
| #[cfg_eval] | ||
| { | ||
| #[cfg(not(FALSE))] | ||
| { | ||
| #[cfg(not(FALSE))] | ||
| 42 | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| }; | ||
| result | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Test for overlapping nested cfg attributes with different conditions | ||
| fn overlapping_cfg_attributes() -> u32 { | ||
| // This tests a more complex case where the cfg attributes have different conditions | ||
| // and are deeply nested, which could potentially trigger issues with replacement ranges | ||
| #[cfg_eval] | ||
| { | ||
| #[cfg(any(not(FALSE), FALSE))] | ||
| { | ||
| #[cfg(all(not(FALSE), not(FALSE)))] | ||
| { | ||
| #[cfg(not(FALSE))] | ||
| 100 | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Test for the interaction between cfg_eval and cfg_attr | ||
| fn cfg_eval_with_cfg_attr() -> u32 { | ||
| // This tests the interaction between cfg_eval and cfg_attr, which was | ||
| // one of the main issues addressed in the regression fix | ||
| #[cfg_eval] | ||
| #[cfg_attr(not(FALSE), cfg_attr(not(FALSE), cfg(not(FALSE))))] | ||
| 200 | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn main() { | ||
| assert_eq!(nested_cfg_attributes(), 0); | ||
| assert_eq!(multi_level_nesting(), 42); | ||
| assert_eq!(overlapping_cfg_attributes(), 100); | ||
| assert_eq!(cfg_eval_with_cfg_attr(), 200); | ||
| } |