aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/lib/compiler/test/trycatch_SUITE.erl
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2016-03-15update copyright-yearHenrik Nord
2016-02-25Remove ?line macrosBjörn Gustavsson
2016-02-17Eliminate use of test_server.hrl and test_server_line.hrlBjörn Gustavsson
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.
2015-06-18Change license text to APLv2Bruce Yinhe
2015-02-20beam_jump: Don't jump into the middle of a 'try'Björn Gustavsson
The code sharing optimization could produce a jump into the middle of a 'try' block. beam_validator would reject the code. Reported-by: Ulf Norell
2015-02-03sys_core_fold: Optimize let statements more aggressivelyBjörn Gustavsson
I originally decided that in 'value' context, rewriting a let statement where the variables were not in the body to a sequence was not worth it, because the variables would be unused in only one let in a thousand lets (roughly). I have reconsidered. The main reason is that if we do the rewrite, core_lib:is_var_used/2 will be used much more frequently, which will help us to find bugs in it sooner. Another reason is that the way letify/2 is currently implemented with its own calls to core_lib:is_var_used/2 is only safe as long as all the bindings are independent of each other. We could make letify/2 smarter, but if we introduce this new optimization there is no need. Measuring compilation speed, I have not seen any significant slowdown. It seems that although core_lib:is_var_used/2 is called much more frequently, most calls will be fast because is_var_used/2 will quickly find a use of the variable. Also add a test case to cover a line opt_guard_try/1 that was no longer covered.
2015-01-26Speed up running of compiler test suites in coverage modeBjörn Gustavsson
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.
2012-10-23compiler: Run testcases in parallelBjörn Gustavsson
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.
2012-03-30Update copyright yearsBjörn-Egil Dahlberg
2012-01-18compiler: Correct live calculation when get/1 is used in try...catchBjörn Gustavsson
In the following code excerpt, the instruction marked below was incorrectly removed: . . . {'try',{y,2},{f,TryCaseLabel}}. {bif,get,{f,0},[{x,0}],{x,0}}. {move,{x,1},{y,0}}. {move,{x,3},{y,1}}. <======= Incorrectly removed {jump,{f,TryEndLabel}}. {label,TryEndLabel}. {try_end,{y,2}}. {deallocate,3}. return. {label,TryCaseLabel}. {try_case,{y,2}}. . . . beam_utils indicated that {y,1} was not used at TryEndLabel, which by itself is correct. But it is still not safe to remove the instruction, because {y,1} might be used at TryCaseLabel if an exception occurs. Noticed-by: Eric Merritt
2011-08-16emulator: Add a fourth element in exception stacktracesBjörn Gustavsson
This commit is a preparation for introducing location information (filename/line number) in stacktraces in exceptions. Currently a stack trace looks like: [{Mod1,Function1,Arity1}, . . . {ModN,FunctionN,ArityN}] Add a forth element to each tuple that can be used indication the filename and line number of the source file: [{Mod1,Function1,Arity1,Location1}, . . . {ModN,FunctionN,ArityN,LocationN}] In this commit, the fourth element will just be an empty list, and we will change all code that look at or manipulate stacktraces.
2011-04-12compiler tests: Reinstate ?MODULE macro in calls to test_lib:recompile/1Björn Gustavsson
In 3d0f4a3085f11389e5b22d10f96f0cbf08c9337f (an update to conform with common_test), in all test_lib:recompile(?MODULE) calls, ?MODULE was changed to the actual name of the module. That would cause test_lib:recompile/1 to compile the module with the incorrect compiler options in cloned modules such as record_no_opt_SUITE, causing worse coverage.
2011-03-11Update copyright yearsBjörn-Egil Dahlberg
2011-02-17Rename Suite Callback to Common Test HookLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Fix formatting for compilerLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Add init_per_suite and end_per_suiteLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Add ts_install_scb to suite/0Lukas Larsson
2011-02-17Update compiler tests to conform with common_test standardLukas Larsson
2011-02-17Update all fin_per_testcase to end_per_testcase.Lukas Larsson
2009-11-20The R13B03 release.OTP_R13B03Erlang/OTP