Add some tests

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/ghci/scripts/all.T

@@ -41,5 +41,6 @@ test('ghci027', normal, ghci_script, ['ghci027.script'])
 test('ghci028', normal, ghci_script, ['ghci028.script'])
 test('ghci029', normal, ghci_script, ['ghci029.script'])
 test('ghci030', expect_broken(2082), ghci_script, ['ghci030.script'])
+test('ghci031', expect_broken(2138), ghci_script, ['ghci031.script'])
 
 test('1914', normal, ghci_script, ['1914.script'])

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/ghci/scripts/ghci031.hs

+-- Trac #2138
+-- If we :i D, we should see the Eq constraint
+
+module Foo where
+
+data Eq a => D a = C a
+

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/ghci/scripts/ghci031.script

+:l ghci031
+:i D

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/ghci/scripts/ghci031.stdout

+data Eq a => D a = C a         -- Defined at ghci031.hs:6:13

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/all.T

@@ -72,6 +72,8 @@ clean(['Rn059_A.hi', 'Rn059_A.o', 'Rn059_B.hi', 'Rn059_B.o'])
 test('rn060', normal, compile, [''])
 test('rn061', normal, compile, [''])
 test('rn062', normal, compile, [''])
+test('rn063', expect_broken(2136), compile, [''])
+test('rn064', if_compiler_ge('ghc', '6.9', expect_broken(2137)), compile, [''])
 
 test('T1972', if_compiler_lt('ghc', '6.9', expect_fail), compile, [''])
 

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/rn063.hs

+
+{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall #-}
+
+module Foo where
+
+-- We should complain that both x and y are unused.
+-- We used to not warn for recursive bindings, like x (trac #2136).
+
+v :: a
+v = let x = x in undefined
+
+w :: a
+w = let y = 'a' in undefined
+

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/rn063.stderr

+
+rn063.hs:10:8: Warning: Defined but not used: `x'
+
+rn063.hs:13:8: Warning: Defined but not used: `y'

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/rn064.hs

+
+{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall #-}
+
+module Foo where
+
+-- We should complain that the first r shadows the second one, and give
+-- the right locations for the two of them. (trac #2137)
+
+z :: a
+z = r
+    where
+        _a = 'a'
+        _f r = r
+        _b = 'b'
+        r = undefined
+        _c = 'c'
+

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/rn064.stderr

+
+rn064.hs:13:11:
+    Warning: This binding for `r' shadows the existing binding
+               bound at rn064.hs:15:8
+             In the definition of `_f'

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/rename/should_compile/rn064.stderr-6.8

+
+rn064.hs:13:11:
+    Warning: This binding for `r' shadows an existing binding
+             In the definition of `_f'

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/typecheck/should_compile/all.T

@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ test('tc239', extra_clean(['Tc239_Help.hi', 'Tc239_Help.o']),
 test('tc240', if_compiler_lt('ghc', '6.9', skip), compile, [''])
 test('tc241', normal, compile, [''])
 test('tc242', normal, compile, [''])
+test('tc243', normal, compile, [''])
 
 test('FD1', normal, compile_fail, [''])
 test('FD2', normal, compile_fail, [''])

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/typecheck/should_compile/tc243.hs

+
+{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall #-}
+
+module Bug where
+
+-- When we warn about this, we give a warning saying
+--    Inferred type: (.+.) :: forall a. a
+-- but we used to not print the parentheses.
+
+(.+.) = undefined
+

testsuite/tests/ghc-regress/typecheck/should_compile/tc243.stderr

+
+tc243.hs:10:0:
+    Warning: Definition but no type signature for `.+.'
+             Inferred type: (.+.) :: forall a. a