blob: 75b4ec365fe03af67be7ba03ecd505218115639a [file] [log] [blame]
// run-pass
#![feature(box_syntax)]
#![feature(intrinsics)]
mod rusti {
extern "rust-intrinsic" {
pub fn init<T>() -> T;
pub fn move_val_init<T>(dst: *mut T, src: T);
}
}
pub fn main() {
unsafe {
// sanity check
check_drops_state(0, None);
let mut x: Box<D> = box D(1);
assert_eq!(x.0, 1);
// A normal overwrite, to demonstrate `check_drops_state`.
x = box D(2);
// At this point, one destructor has run, because the
// overwrite of `x` drops its initial value.
check_drops_state(1, Some(1));
let mut y: Box<D> = rusti::init();
// An initial binding does not overwrite anything.
check_drops_state(1, Some(1));
// Since `y` has been initialized via the `init` intrinsic, it
// would be unsound to directly overwrite its value via normal
// assignment.
//
// The code currently generated by the compiler is overly
// accepting, however, in that it will check if `y` is itself
// null and thus avoid the unsound action of attempting to
// free null. In other words, if we were to do a normal
// assignment like `y = box D(4);` here, it probably would not
// crash today. But the plan is that it may well crash in the
// future, (I believe).
// `x` is moved here; the manner in which this is tracked by the
// compiler is hidden.
rusti::move_val_init(&mut y, x);
// But what we *can* observe is how many times the destructor
// for `D` is invoked, and what the last value we saw was
// during such a destructor call. We do so after the end of
// this scope.
assert_eq!(y.0, 2);
y.0 = 3;
assert_eq!(y.0, 3);
check_drops_state(1, Some(1));
}
check_drops_state(2, Some(3));
}
static mut NUM_DROPS: i32 = 0;
static mut LAST_DROPPED: Option<i32> = None;
fn check_drops_state(num_drops: i32, last_dropped: Option<i32>) {
unsafe {
assert_eq!(NUM_DROPS, num_drops);
assert_eq!(LAST_DROPPED, last_dropped);
}
}
struct D(i32);
impl Drop for D {
fn drop(&mut self) {
unsafe {
NUM_DROPS += 1;
LAST_DROPPED = Some(self.0);
}
}
}