os-rust/tests/ui/for-loop-while/while-label.rs

//@ run-pass
#![allow(unreachable_code)]


pub fn main() {
    let mut i = 100;
    'w: while 1 + 1 == 2 {
        i -= 1;
        if i == 95 {
            break 'w;
            panic!("Should have broken out of loop");
        }
    }
    assert_eq!(i, 95);
}
Add `// run-pass` annotations to all the tests under `ui/run-pass/`. (I may have accidentally added it to some auxilliary crates as well; my emacs-macro-based methodology was pretty crude.) 2018-08-30 14:18:55 +02:00			`//@ run-pass`
Add `#![allow(..)]` as necessary to get re-migrated run-pass tests compiling with clean stderr again. Most were added mechanically. 2018-09-25 23:51:35 +02:00			`#![allow(unreachable_code)]`
Add support for labeled while loops. 2014-07-25 20:12:51 -04:00
rustdoc: Replace no-pretty-expanded with pretty-expanded Now that features must be declared expanded source often does not compile. This adds 'pretty-expanded' to a bunch of test cases that still work. 2015-03-22 13:13:15 -07:00
Add support for labeled while loops. 2014-07-25 20:12:51 -04:00			`pub fn main() {`
Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 22:05:03 +01:00			`let mut i = 100;`
			`'w: while 1 + 1 == 2 {`
Add support for labeled while loops. 2014-07-25 20:12:51 -04:00			`i -= 1;`
			`if i == 95 {`
			`break 'w;`
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . \| xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2014-10-09 15:17:22 -04:00			`panic!("Should have broken out of loop");`
Add support for labeled while loops. 2014-07-25 20:12:51 -04:00			`}`
			`}`
			`assert_eq!(i, 95);`
			`}`