1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-04-29 19:30:36 +02:00
guile/test-suite/tests/coverage.test
Andy Wingo 6cf2fc1b9b Fix coverage test for top-level binding optimization
* test-suite/tests/coverage.test ("line-execution-counts"): Fix
  expectations for tail-call test.
2019-08-18 22:27:12 +02:00

306 lines
13 KiB
Scheme
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

;;;; coverage.test --- Code coverage. -*- mode: scheme; coding: utf-8; -*-
;;;;
;;;; Copyright (C) 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
;;;;
;;;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
;;;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
;;;; License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
;;;; version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
;;;;
;;;; This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
;;;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;;;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
;;;; Lesser General Public License for more details.
;;;;
;;;; You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
;;;; License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
;;;; Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
(define-module (test-coverage)
#:use-module (test-suite lib)
#:use-module (system vm coverage)
#:use-module (system vm vm)
#:use-module (system base compile)
#:use-module (system foreign)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-11))
(define-syntax code
(syntax-rules ()
((_ filename snippet)
(let ((input (open-input-string snippet)))
(set-port-filename! input filename)
(read-enable 'positions)
(compile (read input))))))
(define test-procedure
(compile '(lambda (x)
(if (> x 2)
(- x 2)
(+ x 2)))))
(with-test-prefix "instrumented/executed-lines"
(pass-if "instr = exec"
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(lambda (x y) ;; 0
(+ x y)) ;; 1")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 1 2)))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= 3 result)
(let-values (((instr exec)
(instrumented/executed-lines data "foo.scm")))
(and (= 2 instr) (= 2 exec)))))))
(pass-if "instr >= exec"
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(lambda (x y) ;; 0
(if (> x y) ;; 1
(begin ;; 2
(display x) ;; 3
(+ x y)))) ;; 4")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 1 2)))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(let-values (((instr exec)
(instrumented/executed-lines data "foo.scm")))
(and (> instr 0) (>= instr exec))))))))
(with-test-prefix "line-execution-counts"
(pass-if "once"
(let ((proc (code "bar.scm" "(lambda (x y) ;; 0
(+ (/ x y) ;; 1
(* x y))) ;; 2")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 1 2)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "bar.scm")))
(and (pair? counts)
(every (lambda (line+count)
(let ((line (car line+count))
(count (cdr line+count)))
(and (>= line 0)
(<= line 2)
(= count 1))))
counts))))))
;; Unhappily, lack of source location on identifiers combined with a
;; block reordering change makes this test fail. The right solution
;; is to fix the compiler, but really it should happen by fixing
;; psyntax to have source location info for identifiers and immediate
;; values.
(expect-fail "several times"
(let ((proc (code "fooz.scm" "(lambda (x) ;; 0
(format #f \"hello\") ;; 1
(let loop ((x x)) ;; 2
(cond ((> x 0) ;; 3
(begin ;; 4
(format #f \"~a\" x)
(loop (1- x)))) ;; 6
((= x 0) #t) ;; 7
((< x 0) 'never))))")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 77)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "fooz.scm")))
(and (pair? counts)
(every (lambda (line+count)
(let ((line (car line+count))
(count (cdr line+count)))
;; The actual line counts for aliasing
;; operations, like the loop header that
;; initializes "x" to "x", are sensitive to
;; whether there is an associated "mov"
;; instruction, or whether the value is left
;; in place. Currently there are no
;; instructions for line 2, but we allow 1 as
;; well.
(case line
((0 1) (= count 1))
((2) (<= 0 count 1))
((3) (= count 78))
((4 5 6) (= count 77))
((7) (= count 1))
((8) (= count 0))
(else #f))))
counts))))))
(pass-if "some"
(let ((proc (code "baz.scm" "(lambda (x y) ;; 0
(if (> x y) ;; 1
(begin ;; 2
(display x) ;; 3
(+ x y)) ;; 4
(+ x y))) ;; 5")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 1 2)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "baz.scm")))
(and (pair? counts)
(every (lambda (line+count)
(let ((line (car line+count))
(count (cdr line+count)))
(case line
((0 1 5) (= count 1))
((2 3) (= count 0))
((4) #t) ;; the start of the `else' branch is
;; attributed to line 4
(else #f))))
counts))))))
;; Same unfortunate caveat as above: block ordering and source
;; locations :(
(expect-fail "one proc hit, one proc unused"
(let ((proc (code "baz.scm" "(letrec ((even? (lambda (x) ;; 0
(or (= x 0) ;; 1
(not (odd? (1- x))))))
(odd? (lambda (x) ;; 3
(not (even? (1- x)))))) ;; 4
even?)")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 0)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "baz.scm")))
(and (pair? counts)
(every (lambda (line+count)
(let ((line (car line+count))
(count (cdr line+count)))
(case line
((0 1) (= count 1))
((2 3 4 5) (= count 0))
(else #f))))
counts))))))
(pass-if "case-lambda"
(let ((proc (code "cl.scm" "(case-lambda ;; 0
((x) (+ x 3)) ;; 1
((x y) (+ x y))) ;; 2")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda ()
(+ (proc 1) (proc 2 3))))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "cl.scm")))
(and (pair? counts)
(lset= equal? '((0 . 2) (1 . 1) (2 . 1)) counts))))))
(pass-if "all code on one line"
;; There are several proc/IP pairs pointing to this source line, yet the hit
;; count for the line should be 1.
(let ((proc (code "one-liner.scm"
"(lambda (x y) (+ x y (* x y) (if (> x y) 1 2) (quotient y x)))")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 451 1884)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "one-liner.scm")))
(equal? counts '((0 . 1)))))))
(pass-if "tail calls"
(let ((proc (code "tail-calls.scm"
"(begin
(define (tail-call-test)
(display \"foo\\n\")
(tail-call-target))
(define (tail-call-target)
(display \"bar\\n\"))
tail-call-test)")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (with-output-to-string proc)))))
(let ((counts (line-execution-counts data "tail-calls.scm")))
(define (lset-contains? eq? a b)
(lset= eq? b (lset-intersection eq? a b)))
;; Due to top-level binding optimization, the target may be
;; inlined or into the caller. All we can say is that the
;; entry was seen, and the two displays were called.
(lset-contains? equal? counts '((1 . 1) (2 . 1) (6 . 1))))))))
(with-test-prefix "procedure-execution-count"
(pass-if "several times"
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(lambda (x y) x)")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (+ (proc 1 2) (proc 2 3))))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= 3 result)
(= (procedure-execution-count data proc) 2)))))
(pass-if "case-lambda"
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(case-lambda ((x) x) ((x y) (+ x y)))")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda ()
(+ (proc 1) (proc 2 3))))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= 6 result)
(= (procedure-execution-count data proc) 2)))))
(pass-if "never"
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(lambda (x y) x)")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (+ 1 2)))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= 3 result)
(zero? (procedure-execution-count data proc))))))
(pass-if "applicable struct"
(let* ((<box> (make-struct/no-tail <applicable-struct-vtable> 'pw))
(proc (lambda args (length args)))
(b (make-struct/no-tail <box> proc)))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage b)))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= 0 result)
(= (procedure-execution-count data proc) 1)))))
(pass-if "called from C"
;; The `scm_call_N' functions use the VM returned by `the-vm'. This
;; test makes sure that their calls are traced.
(let ((proc (code "foo.scm" "(lambda (x y) (+ x y))"))
(call (false-if-exception ; can we resolve `scm_call_2'?
(pointer->procedure '*
(dynamic-func "scm_call_2"
(dynamic-link))
'(* * *)))))
(if call
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda ()
(call (make-pointer (object-address proc))
(make-pointer (object-address 1))
(make-pointer (object-address 2)))))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= (object-address 3) (pointer-address result))
(= (procedure-execution-count data proc) 1)))
(throw 'unresolved))))
(pass-if "called from eval"
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda ()
(eval '(test-procedure 123) (current-module))))))
(and (coverage-data? data)
(= (test-procedure 123) result)
(= (procedure-execution-count data test-procedure) 1)))))
(with-test-prefix "instrumented-source-files"
(pass-if "source files are listed as expected"
(let ((proc (code "chbouib.scm" "(lambda (x y) x)")))
(let-values (((data result)
(with-code-coverage
(lambda () (proc 1 2)))))
(let ((files (map basename (instrumented-source-files data))))
(and (member "boot-9.scm" files)
(member "chbouib.scm" files)
#t))))))