[erlang-bugs] Spec or Dialyzer regression

Tuncer Ayaz <>
Tue Oct 2 16:59:25 CEST 2012


On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM, <> wrote:
> 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!

Thanks!

> 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


More information about the erlang-bugs mailing list