Files
rust/tests/ui
bors f6648f252a Auto merge of #126557 - GrigorenkoPV:vec_track_caller, r=joboet
Add `#[track_caller]` to allocating methods of `Vec` & `VecDeque`

Part 4 in a lengthy saga.
r? `@joshtriplett` because they were the reviewer the last 3 times.
`@bors` rollup=never "[just in case this has perf effects, Vec is hot](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79323#issuecomment-731866746)"

This was first attempted in #79323 by `@nvzqz.` It got approval from `@joshtriplett,` but rotted with merge conflicts and got closed.

Then it got picked up by `@Dylan-DPC-zz` in #83359. A benchmark was run[^perf], the results (after a bit of thinking[^thinking]) were deemed ok[^ok], but there was a typo[^typo] and the PR was made from a wrong remote in the first place[^remote], so #83909 was opened instead.

By the time #83909 rolled around, the methods in question had received some optimizations[^optimizations], so another perf run was conducted[^perf2]. The results were ok[^ok2]. There was a suggestion to add regression tests for panic behavior [^tests], but before it could be addressed, the PR fell victim to merge conflicts[^conflicts] and died again[^rip].

3 years have passed, and (from what I can tell) this has not been tried again, so here I am now, reviving this old effort.

Given how much time has passed and the fact that I've also touched `VecDeque` this time, it probably makes sense to
`@bors` try `@rust-timer`

[^perf]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83359#issuecomment-804450095
[^thinking]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83359#issuecomment-805286704
[^ok]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83359#issuecomment-812739031
[^typo]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83359#issuecomment-812750205
[^remote]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83359#issuecomment-814067119
[^optimizations]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-813736593
[^perf2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-813825552
[^ok2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-813831341
[^tests]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-825788964
[^conflicts]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-851173480
[^rip]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83909#issuecomment-873569771
2024-10-14 02:33:40 +00:00
..
2024-07-18 00:00:04 +00:00
2024-08-10 12:07:17 +02:00
2024-08-11 09:58:11 +01:00
2024-10-12 17:07:13 -04:00
2024-09-20 10:02:14 -07:00
2024-10-04 23:38:41 +00:00
2024-08-09 22:02:23 -04:00
2024-09-30 22:21:45 +08:00
2024-08-10 12:07:17 +02:00
2024-09-20 10:02:14 -07:00
2024-08-28 23:32:40 +01:00
2024-09-20 01:20:10 +03:00
2024-09-05 06:37:38 -04:00
2024-06-01 09:40:46 +08:00
2024-09-15 09:51:32 +02:00
2024-07-12 03:22:32 +00:00
2024-09-06 10:32:48 -04:00
2024-09-20 10:02:14 -07:00
2024-08-18 19:46:53 +02:00
2024-05-28 12:31:12 +02:00
2024-08-02 11:34:54 +00:00
2024-10-04 23:38:41 +00:00
2024-08-02 11:34:54 +00:00
2024-08-03 07:57:31 -04:00
2024-09-09 19:39:43 -07:00
2024-10-12 13:01:36 +02:00
2024-09-26 13:21:15 +02:00
2024-08-31 23:56:45 +02:00
2024-09-03 14:36:21 +02:00
2024-10-04 23:38:41 +00:00
2024-10-01 13:55:46 -04:00
2024-10-01 13:55:46 -04:00
2024-09-18 16:45:48 -04:00
2024-05-21 20:16:39 +00:00
2024-06-25 18:06:22 +02:00
2024-10-07 14:45:49 -07:00

UI Tests

This folder contains rustc's UI tests.

Test Directives (Headers)

Typically, a UI test will have some test directives / headers which are special comments that tell compiletest how to build and intepret a test.

As part of an on-going effort to rewrite compiletest (see https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/536), a major change proposal to change legacy compiletest-style headers // <directive> to ui_test-style headers //@ <directive> was accepted (see https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/512.

An example directive is ignore-test. In legacy compiletest style, the header would be written as

// ignore-test

but in ui_test style, the header would be written as

//@ ignore-test

compiletest is changed to accept only //@ directives for UI tests (currently), and will reject and report an error if it encounters any comments // <content> that may be parsed as an legacy compiletest-style test header. To fix this, you should migrate to the ui_test-style header //@ <content>.