| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The filters in a list comprehension can be guard expressions or
an ordinary expressions.
If a guard expression is used as a filter, an exception will basically
mean the same as 'false':
t() ->
L = [{some_tag,42},an_atom],
[X || X <- L, element(1, X) =:= some_tag]
%% Returns [{some_tag,42}]
On the other hand, if an ordinary expression is used as a filter, there
will be an exception:
my_element(N, T) -> element(N, T).
t() ->
L = [{some_tag,42},an_atom],
[X || X <- L, my_element(1, X) =:= some_tag]
%% Causes a 'badarg' exception when element(1, an_atom) is evaluated
It has been allowed for several releases to override a BIF with
a local function. Thus, if we define a function called element/2,
it will be called instead of the BIF element/2 within the module.
We must use the "erlang:" prefix to call the BIF.
Therefore, the following code is expected to work the same way as in
our second example above:
-compile({no_auto_import,[element/2]}).
element(N, T) ->
erlang:element(N, T).
t() ->
L = [{some_tag,42},an_atom],
[X || X <- L, element(1, X) =:= some_tag].
%% Causes a 'badarg' exception when element(1, an_atom) is evaluated
But the compiler refuses to compile the code with the following
diagnostic:
call to local/imported function element/2 is illegal in guard
|
|
Add is_cloned_mod(Mod) to determine whether Mod is the original
name for a module (e.g. record_SUITE) or a cloned module
(e.g. record_no_opt_SUITE).
|
|
Correct calculation of the number of parallel processes to use
when cover is used. It was supposed not to exceed 4 (according to
the comment), but it was calculated as the number of schedulers.
On my computer, having 8 schedulers, this change made the compiler
test suite with cover run almost twice as fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The macro ?t is deprecated. Replace its use with 'test_server'.
|
|
|
|
?config is ugly and not recommended. Use proplists:get_value/2
instead.
|
|
As a first step to removing the test_server application as
as its own separate application, change the inclusion of
test_server.hrl to an inclusion of ct.hrl and remove the
inclusion of test_server_line.hrl.
|
|
|
|
Simplify the uniq/0 function by using erlang:unique_integer/1.
|
|
This module is the last that uses -include() instead of
include_lib(). With that change, a quick smoke test can
be done simply like this:
PATH=$ERL_TOP/bin:$PATH erlc -W0 *.erl
Without the change, you would also need to add
-I $ERL_TOP/lib/test_server/include
to the command line.
|
|
Given this code:
f(S) ->
F0 = F1 = {S,S},
[F0,F1].
case_opt/3 would "optimize" it like this:
f(S) ->
F1 = {S,S},
F0 = {S,S},
[F0,F1].
Similarly, this code:
g({a,_,_}=T) ->
{b,
[_,_] = [T,none],
x}.
would be rewritten to:
g({a,Tmp1,Tmp2}=T) ->
Tmp3 = {a,Tmp1,Tmp2},
{b,
[Tmp3,none],
x}.
where the tuple is rebuilt instead of using the T variable.
Rewrite case_opt/3 to be more careful while optimizing.
|
|
I have spent too much time lately waiting for 'cover' to finish,
so now its time to optimize the running time of the tests suite
in coverage mode.
Basically, when 'cover' is running, the test suites would not
run any tests in parallel. The reason is that using too many
parallel processes when running 'cover' would be slower than
running them sequentially. But those measurements were made
several years ago, and many improvements have been made to
improve the parallelism of the run-time system.
Experimenting with the test_lib:p_run/2 function, I found that
increasing the number of parallel processes would speed up the
self_compile tests cases in compilation_SUITE. The difference
between using 3 processes or 4 processes was slight, though,
so it seems that we should not use more than 4 processes when
running 'cover'.
We don't want to change test_lib:parallel/0, because there is
no way to limit the number of test cases that will be run in
parallel by common_test. However, there as test suites (such as
andor_SUITE) that don't invoke the compiler at run-time. We can
run the cases in such test suites in parallel even if 'cover'
is running.
|
|
|
|
Run testcases in parallel will make the test suite run slightly
faster. Another reason for this change is that we want more testing
of parallel testcase support in common_test.
|
|
We probably don't gain anything by using more processes than available
schedulers. Also, if 'cover' is being run, using more than one process
may make it slower, so we will be very conservative and use only one
process in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It can be useful for other test suites.
|
|
Clone some test suites and compile them with the 'inline' option
to test inlining more thorughly.
|
|
* bg/compiler-remove-r11-support:
compiler: Don't support the no_binaries option
erts: Don't support the put_string/3 instruction
compiler: Don't support the no_constant_pool option
compiler: Don't support the r11 option
test_server: Don't support communication with R11 nodes
binary_SUITE: Don't test bit-level binary roundtrips with R11 nodes
erts: Test compatibility of funs with R12 instead of R11
OTP-8531 bg/compiler-remove-r11-support
|
|
The no_binaries option terminates the compiler with an error
if any bit syntax is used in the module being compiled.
(It used to be implied by the removed r11 option.)
|
|
The no_constant_pool option was implied by the r11 option. It turns
off the usage of the constant (literal) pool, so that BEAM
instructions that use constants can be loaded in an R11 system.
Since the r11 option has been removed, there is no need to
retain the no_constant_pool option.
|
|
The r11 option was used to generate BEAM modules that could
loaded both on both R11 and R12/R13 to facilitate testing
that R11 and R13 nodes could communicate with each other.
Since R14 is only required to be compatible with R12 and
R13 nodes, the r11 option is no longer needed.
|
|
|
