| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Recent spring cleaning in the test suite left a line in sys_core_fold
dealing with an unnecessary catch uncovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
