Fix coverage for the first statement in the function #17470
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
why did bd06d27 make this necessary? should see if Coverage.jl's tests might start passing again on this branch |
|
|
From the commit message |
|
Thanks. |
|
Looks like this has fixed coveralls for master (https://coveralls.io/builds/7058631). Thanks :) |
c42f
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2020
This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an addition LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug #17442 and fix #17470.
c42f
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2020
This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an additional LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug #17442 and fix #17470.
oxinabox
pushed a commit
to oxinabox/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2020
…35138) This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an additional LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug JuliaLang#17442 and fix JuliaLang#17470.
ravibitsgoa
pushed a commit
to ravibitsgoa/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2020
…35138) This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an additional LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug JuliaLang#17442 and fix JuliaLang#17470.
ztultrebor
pushed a commit
to ztultrebor/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2020
…35138) This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an additional LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug JuliaLang#17442 and fix JuliaLang#17470.
staticfloat
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2020
This comes in three pieces: * In the parser, put an additional LineNumberNode at the top of each function body to track the line of the function definition * In lowering, remove this LineNumberNode from the body and add it as the last parameter to method signature in `Expr(:method, name, sig, body)` * In the runtime, extract the line number node from sig and add it to the jl_method_t. Since the first line is now correctly tracked separately from the body, a special case in coverage codegen was removed. This was required when line numbers were tracked in a different way - see origin of this in the use of `toplineno` in bug #17442 and fix #17470.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #17442
Not sure how to add tests but at least this fixes the coverage on my package.