Merge branch 'dev' into bmk/inets/ftp/missing_spec_causes_dialyxer_problems/OTP-9114

Also fixed a bunch of "end-years" (was 2010 but should have been 2011,
which the commit hook not happy with).

1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/lib/dialyzer/test/opaque_tests_SUITE_data/src/mixed_opaque/mixed_opaque_use.erl b/lib/dialyzer/test/opaque_tests_SUITE_data/src/mixed_opaque/mixed_opaque_use.erl
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..e82dcd5f38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lib/dialyzer/test/opaque_tests_SUITE_data/src/mixed_opaque/mixed_opaque_use.erl
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+%%---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+%% Test that tries some combinations of using more than one opaque data type
+%% in the same function(s).
+%%----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+-module(mixed_opaque_use).
+
+-export([ok1/1, ok2/0, wrong1/0]).
+
+-define(REC, mixed_opaque_rec_adt).
+-define(QUEUE, mixed_opaque_queue_adt).
+
+%% Currently returning unions of opaque types is considered OK
+ok1(Type) ->
+    case Type of
+	queue -> ?QUEUE:new();
+	rec -> ?REC:new()
+    end.
+
+%% Constructing a queue of records is OK
+ok2() ->
+    Q0 = ?QUEUE:new(),
+    R0 = ?REC:new(),
+    Q1 = ?QUEUE:add(R0, Q0),
+    {R1,_Q2} = ?QUEUE:dequeue(Q1),
+    ?REC:get_a(R1).
+
+%% But of course calling a function expecting some opaque type
+%% with some other opaque typs is not OK
+wrong1() ->
+    Q = ?QUEUE:new(),
+    ?REC:get_a(Q).