From 2b42cecdedd606100e2f3a12d86f86b2a65d29c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Ferano <joseph@ferano.io>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 10:16:25 +0700
Subject: [PATCH] No test program is left from the move-only rule for Vec that
 nothing checks any more

---
 test/programs/vec-double-free.flan   |  8 --------
 test/programs/vec-moved-in-loop.flan |  8 --------
 test/programs/vec-moved.flan         | 15 ---------------
 test/test_valgrind.ml                |  4 ++--
 4 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 test/programs/vec-double-free.flan
 delete mode 100644 test/programs/vec-moved-in-loop.flan
 delete mode 100644 test/programs/vec-moved.flan

diff --git a/test/programs/vec-double-free.flan b/test/programs/vec-double-free.flan
deleted file mode 100644
index 049ee1c6..00000000
--- a/test/programs/vec-double-free.flan
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-;;;; `free` consumes its argument exactly as any other move does, so the second
-;;;; one is a compile error rather than a runtime crash. Nothing analyses this
-;;;; specially: it is the same dead-binding rule as passing one to a function.
-(defn main [] i32
-  (let [v (vec-new i32)]
-    (free v)
-    (free v)
-    0))
diff --git a/test/programs/vec-moved-in-loop.flan b/test/programs/vec-moved-in-loop.flan
deleted file mode 100644
index fdcd01cf..00000000
--- a/test/programs/vec-moved-in-loop.flan
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-;;;; A loop body that moves a binding declared outside the loop: the second
-;;;; iteration would use what the first gave away. The dead set alone cannot
-;;;; see this — merged once at the end of the body it counts one move, not two
-;;;; — so it is a rule, and it is refused with the reason.
-(defn main [] i32
-  (let [v (vec-new i32)]
-    (dotimes [i 3] (free v))
-    0))
diff --git a/test/programs/vec-moved.flan b/test/programs/vec-moved.flan
deleted file mode 100644
index 02a8bfc4..00000000
--- a/test/programs/vec-moved.flan
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-;;;; A Vec is move-only: passing one to a function transfers ownership, and the
-;;;; source binding is dead afterwards. That rule is what makes a double free
-;;;; unrepresentable, which is why `free` needs no analysis of its own.
-(defn take [v (Vec i32)] i32
-  (let [n (length v)]
-    (free v)
-    n))
-
-(defn main [] i32
-  (let [v (vec-new i32)]
-    (push v 1)
-    (println (take v))
-    ;; v went with the call. Being refused here is the whole test.
-    (println (length v))
-    0))
diff --git a/test/test_valgrind.ml b/test/test_valgrind.ml
index e881581a..ecce3a92 100644
--- a/test/test_valgrind.ml
+++ b/test/test_valgrind.ml
@@ -179,8 +179,8 @@ let check label path args ~checks =
    - dev-* and reload-*, which need a host process or a dlopen harness.
    - the compile-time refusals: nth-gone, pkg-hidden-main, pkg-two-aliases,
      pkg-two-mains, pkg-cycle, pkg-alias-clash, user-allocator, and the whole
-     vec-moved / vec-double-free / vec-in-struct / vec-global / vec-to-c /
-     vec-untyped family. These never produce a binary at all: the
+     vec-in-struct / vec-global / vec-to-c / vec-untyped family. These never
+     produce a binary at all: the
      checker refuses them, which is the point of them. There is nothing for
      memcheck to run.
    - shadow-pkg.flan, which is a package fragment with no main and does not