Test interaction between async { ... } and ?, return, and break
#63387
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
9 tasks
Centril
force-pushed
the
async-block-control-flow-tests
branch
from
49351aa to
21a6c21
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 21a6c214f0bcfb2881ae80d28141185e17713f97 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@bors rollup |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Centril
force-pushed
the
async-block-control-flow-tests
branch
from
21a6c21 to
48fbf48
Compare
|
Woops; forgot to @bors r=cramertj |
|
📌 Commit 48fbf48 has been approved by |
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2019
…sts, r=cramertj
Test interaction between `async { ... }` and `?`, `return`, and `break`
Per the second checkbox in rust-lang#62121 (comment), test that `async { .. }` blocks:
1. do not allow `break` expressions.
2. get targeted by `return` and not the parent function.
3. get targeted by `?` and not the parent function.
Works towards resolving blockers in rust-lang#63209.
r? @cramertj
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2019
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #63162 (Miri tests: use xargo to build separate libstd) - #63289 (Don't recommend `extern crate` syntax) - #63373 (gitignore: add comment explaining policy) - #63374 (move of packed fields might or might not occur when they actually are sufficiently aligned) - #63381 (reduce visibility) - #63387 (Test interaction between `async { ... }` and `?`, `return`, and `break`) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2019
…amertj
Stabilize `async_await` in Rust 1.39.0
Here we stabilize:
- free and inherent `async fn`s,
- the `<expr>.await` expression form,
- and the `async move? { ... }` block form.
Closes rust-lang#62149.
Closes rust-lang#50547.
All the blockers are now closed.
<details>
- [x] FCP in rust-lang#62149
- [x] rust-lang#61949; PR in rust-lang#62849.
- [x] rust-lang#62517; PR in rust-lang#63376.
- [x] rust-lang#63225; PR in rust-lang#63501
- [x] rust-lang#63388; PR in rust-lang#63499
- [x] rust-lang#63500; PR in rust-lang#63501
- [x] rust-lang#62121 (comment)
- [x] Some tests for control flow (PR rust-lang#63387):
- `?`
- `return` in `async` blocks
- `break`
- [x] rust-lang#61775 (comment), i.e. tests for rust-lang#60944 with `async fn`s instead). PR in rust-lang#63383
</details>
r? @cramertj
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
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.
Per the second checkbox in #62121 (comment), test that
async { .. }blocks:breakexpressions.returnand not the parent function.?and not the parent function.Works towards resolving blockers in #63209.
r? @cramertj