-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 790
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
putting a bunch of opened issues about IL optimisation under IL baseline tests #16325
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
putting a bunch of opened issues about IL optimisation under IL baseline tests #16325
Conversation
95e29b8
to
95245fd
Compare
❗ Release notes requiredCaution No release notes found for the changed paths (see table below). Please make sure to add an entry with an informative description of the change as well as link to this pull request, issue and language suggestion if applicable. Release notes for this repository are based on Keep A Changelog format. The following format is recommended for this repository:
If you believe that release notes are not necessary for this PR, please add NO_RELEASE_NOTES label to the pull request. You can open this PR in browser to add release notes: open in github.dev
|
// <testmetadata> | ||
// { "optimization": { "reported_in": "#9548", "reported_by": "@teo-tsirpanis", "last_know_version_not_optimizing": "8", "first_known_version_optimizing": null } } | ||
// </testmetadata> | ||
|
||
open System | ||
|
||
let g() = | ||
for x in 0 .. 2 .. 15 do | ||
Console.WriteLine x | ||
g() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This one and for_loop_non_int
should now both be optimized after #16650 (with langversion preview
). (So I guess you'd update these once it got shipped in 9?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the heads up! I need to figure out the remaining baselines that fail on CI to hopefully wrap up this PR.
… / release, and hopefully fix the last failing one.
6edffb7
to
7a5b541
Compare
The empty .err files can be removed. |
…bly>'/ field identifier seems to differ when running all tests versus single one
…internal visible to" test-only API.
There is something which currently makes IL baseline tests not robust among test runs and platform differences, related to static field.
I've circumvented one aspect of it, the field name, by exposing a new @KevinRansom, wondering if you have any suggestion about either mainge the assembly generation consistent so the disassembly wouldn't be affected, or another thing we could do in context of the tests, to make those IL baseline tests more robust? I think we want IL baseline test to be suitable for more aspects than currently exercised in the test suite, to cover more ground in terms of non-regression and awareness of code generation changes. |
As discussed in #16302 (comment)
This is just to have the tests under CI check in case the code gen happens to change for any reason.
Note that I've put json metadata, we can discuss in this PR if we want to do something with it yet.