Why are the tests byte-compiled

Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Phillip Lord]

I'm just trying to write some tests, and I get an error like this.

Test open-this-file backtrace:
  #[nil "\306\307!\310\311\216\n\312P\313\314!\x1c\315\216\316\314\310
  ert--run-test-internal([cl-struct-ert--test-execution-info [cl-struc

Which is pretty useless for debugging. On the other hand, if I launch
the erts using the same command as the makefile uses but directly on the
source file (i.e. not byte compiled) then I get.

Test open-this-file backtrace:
  (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")) (git-dir (ge
  (setq value-0 (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")

which is useful.

Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled. Or am I missing
something?

Phil

RE: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Drew Adams]

> I'm just trying to write some tests, and I get an error like this.
> 
> Test open-this-file backtrace:
>   #[nil "\306\307!\310\311\216\n\312P\313\314!\x1c\315\216\316\314\310
>   ert--run-test-internal([cl-struct-ert--test-execution-info [cl-struc
> 
> Which is pretty useless for debugging. On the other hand, if I launch
> the erts using the same command as the makefile uses but directly on the
> source file (i.e. not byte compiled) then I get.
> 
> Test open-this-file backtrace:
>   (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")) (git-dir (ge
>   (setq value-0 (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")
> 
> which is useful.
> 
> Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled. Or am I
> missing something?

Backtraces include byte-code for code that was compiled.  They
should not.  Rather, it should at least be possible for a user
or a program to elide the byte-code in a backtrace.

Bug #6991, 2010/09/07.

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6991

Re: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Phillip Lord]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> I'm just trying to write some tests, and I get an error like this.
>> 
>> Test open-this-file backtrace:
>>   #[nil "\306\307!\310\311\216\n\312P\313\314!\315\216\316\314\310
>>   ert--run-test-internal([cl-struct-ert--test-execution-info [cl-struc
>> 
>> Which is pretty useless for debugging. On the other hand, if I launch
>> the erts using the same command as the makefile uses but directly on the
>> source file (i.e. not byte compiled) then I get.
>> 
>> Test open-this-file backtrace:
>>   (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")) (git-dir (ge
>>   (setq value-0 (let ((file (concat vc-git-tests-data-dir "file1.txt")
>> 
>> which is useful.
>> 
>> Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled. Or am I
>> missing something?
>
> Backtraces include byte-code for code that was compiled.  They
> should not.  Rather, it should at least be possible for a user
> or a program to elide the byte-code in a backtrace.


Sure, but in this case the byte-code hides everything of use. I can't
see any reason *why* they are byte compiled.

Phil

RE: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Drew Adams]

> >> Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled.
> >> Or am I missing something?
> >
> > Backtraces include byte-code for code that was compiled.  They
> > should not.  Rather, it should at least be possible for a user
> > or a program to elide the byte-code in a backtrace.
> 
> Sure, but in this case the byte-code hides everything of use.
> I can't see any reason *why* they are byte compiled.

Yes, sorry if I was not clear.  There are two things that could
be improved:

1. The issue you raised, which is whether or not test code should
   be byte-compiled.

2. Bug #6991, http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6991.

If the code you need to see in the backtrace is byte-compiled
then eliding that byte-code won't help.  Agreed.

Re: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Phillip Lord]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> >> Conclusion: the emacs tests should not be byte-compiled.
>> >> Or am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Backtraces include byte-code for code that was compiled.  They
>> > should not.  Rather, it should at least be possible for a user
>> > or a program to elide the byte-code in a backtrace.
>> 
>> Sure, but in this case the byte-code hides everything of use.
>> I can't see any reason *why* they are byte compiled.
>
> Yes, sorry if I was not clear.  There are two things that could
> be improved:
>
> 1. The issue you raised, which is whether or not test code should
>    be byte-compiled.


I'll try turning it off and see what happens! Seems to be the quickest
way to find the answer.

Phil

Re: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Noam Postavsky]

http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=17851 seems related

Re: Why are the tests byte-compiled

[Phillip Lord]

Noam Postavsky <npostavs@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=17851 seems related

That's interesting, although, I'm struggling to see when this statement:


This was never apparent before because even though the files in
test/automated were compiled, the tests were always run from the
uncompiled file.

was true. AFAICT, the makefile always used the elc files.

Still, it does look like it might be worth changing on master. I'll
experiment.

Phil