Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix merge-similar-functions test expections #4534

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 21, 2022
Merged

Fix merge-similar-functions test expections #4534

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 21, 2022

Conversation

kripken
Copy link
Member

@kripken kripken commented Mar 21, 2022

The tests in #4414 have different results than expected when I run
the auto updater script on them. In this PR is what I get locally when
I run that script.

This seems wrong, as when running the test manually - for example,
running -all -merge-similar-functions on the first module in
test/lit/passes/merge-similar-functions.wast - then I do see the
function in the output. The function has to be there, in fact, as it
is called by others after the pass runs, so it would not validate without
it. However, for some reason the auto update script removes it.
@tlively any idea?

@tlively
Copy link
Member

tlively commented Mar 21, 2022

Looks like it's because that function has a synthesized name that doesn't correspond to any of the input functions. The fix would be to use update_lit_checks.py --all-items. Updating the comment at the top of the test to add that flag and rerunning the auto update script should fix it.

@kripken
Copy link
Member Author

kripken commented Mar 21, 2022

Thanks! I forgot about that flag...

PR updated to fix this.

@kripken kripken requested a review from tlively March 21, 2022 21:03
@kripken kripken changed the title [Do not land] Show incorrect auto update script expectations Fix merge-similar-functions test expections Mar 21, 2022
Copy link
Member

@tlively tlively left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The formatting is unfortunate because it makes the merged function look like it comes from the following module, but at least it is included in the test now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants