Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
fix test for code-coverage configuration
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
with --code-coverage, jlcall_api is disabled, altering the AST that gets stored for this function
  • Loading branch information
@vtjnash
vtjnash committed Apr 12, 2017
1 parent bdd4d77 commit 4e698cb
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion test/inference.jl
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -736,7 +736,7 @@ f21175() = 902221
# call again, so that the AST is built on-demand
let e = code_typed(f21175, ())[1].first.code[1]::Expr
@test e.head === :return
@test e.args[1] == Core.QuoteNode(902221)
@test e.args[1] ∈ (902221, Core.QuoteNode(902221))
end

# issue #10207
Expand Down

4 comments on commit 4e698cb

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should the result be tested specifically dependent on the value of the flag then?

@vtjnash
Copy link
Member Author

@vtjnash vtjnash commented on 4e698cb Apr 12, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no, this test doesn't need to be so aggressive

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

wouldn't people who dig into the AST appreciate visibility into what determines when you'll get different calling convention outputs?

@JeffBezanson
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both 902221 and QuoteNode(902221) are valid IR. Unless we want to change that, which one we produce is an implementation detail and people have to handle both.

Please sign in to comment.