[erlang-bugs] Spec or Dialyzer regression

pan <>
Tue Oct 2 16:09:59 CEST 2012


Hi!

It's not really obvious from the output, but the problem is the spec for 
open_port in erlang.erl. All the "will never return" things all boil down 
to
rebar_utils:sh/2 and eventually the call to open_port. The option 'hide' 
is missing from the spec (which is new as it was before handled by the
erl_bif_types.erl thing).

I will update the spec in erlang.erl and you should be down to the single 
warning again in a few days!

Cheers,
/Patrik


On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 01:24:21 +0200, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Kostis Sagonas wrote:
>>>>> On 05/15/2012 09:50 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to be a spec or Dialyzer regression in otp master
>>>>>> revealed when dialyzing rebar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Tuncer did not submit all the info he has, let me add that the
>>>>> behavior reported in his mail exists in the *master* branch of OTP
>>>>> and *not* in the maint branch which works correctly in rebar's code
>>>>> base.
>>>>
>>>> Forgot to test with maint, but will do. That's why it's not mentioned.
>>>
>>> Checked, maint results are the same as R15B01.
>>>
>>>>> It's unlikely that this is a dialyzer issue, as AFAIK dialyzer's
>>>>> code is the same in these two branches, but it's most likely either
>>>>> due to some erroneous spec that was introduced/changed in the master
>>>>> branch or a problem in rebar's code base.
>>>>
>>>> Upon review of the rebar code which provokes the warnings, the
>>>> substantial changes to erl_bif_types seem like a good candidate for
>>>> further analysis (commits bd941f50 03715097 9d870a01). Maybe the
>>>> changes are not finished yet.
>>>>
>>>>> IMO, Tuncer should have checked the latter before filling the
>>>>> report. It would be nice if he did that.
>>>>
>>>> That's a good idea. I will git bisect rebar.
>>>
>>> Done, found no erroneous commit in rebar.
>>
>> Any update on this bug?
>
> Same problem with today's OTP_R15B02-603-gcccf365.
>
> http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-bugs/2012-May/002902.html
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-bugs mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-bugs
>


More information about the erlang-bugs mailing list