|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2017-05-27 00:52 CEST|
|Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0006446||OCaml||typing||public||2014-06-02 10:40||2015-12-11 19:27|
|Priority||normal||Severity||minor||Reproducibility||have not tried|
|Target Version||4.02.0+beta1 / +rc1||Fixed in Version||4.02.0+dev|
|Summary||0006446: "Unused stuff" warnings broken in presence of multiple values with the same name|
|Description||Commit 14896 introduces an intermediate coercion when a structure defines several values with the same name. This interacts badly with how the "unused stuff" warnings are implemented, because this coercion marks components as being used (they are "required" by the coercion).|
module X : sig
val y : int
end = struct
let x = 1
let y = 2
let y = y
|Tags||No tags attached.|
A pseudo-fix could be to check that location are different between source and target declarations before marking the source as being used. E.g. for Includemod.value_descriptions:
let value_descriptions env cxt subst id vd1 vd2 =
Cmt_format.record_value_dependency vd1 vd2;
if vd1.val_loc <> vd2.val_loc then
Env.mark_value_used (Ident.name id) vd1;
but this breaks the warnings for mli files (where we rely on the fact that the signature is matched against itself in compile.ml).
|(Commit 14896 is the fix for PR 6435.)|
|Fixed by commit 14936 on 4.02.|
I'm afraid I don't understand the discussion here.
Introducing any coercion is should mark omitted components as being _unused_, not used.
Why is there any need to distinguish between implicit and explicit coercions?
Or is your tracking going down to the lambda code?
The warnings are implemented by collecting references to values. When a signature S1 is matched against S2, this results in a value declaration X1 matched against the expected declaration X2, and the effect of it is to mark X1 as being used (it is required to make the inclusion check succeed). Consider for example:
module type S = sig val x : int end
module F(X : S) = struct ... end
module A = struct let x = 1 let y = 2 end
module B = F(A)
The signature inferred for A contains two value declarations (with location derived from the implementation). The inclusion check induced by the functor application checks that this signature is a subtype of S, and this results in marking "let x = 1" in A, but not "let y = 2" (which is not checked against any other declaration).
Basically, we assume that inclusion check corresponds to some kind of "static data flow".
Now, if we add an inclusion check between the signature inferred for A and itself, this will result in the declaration for "let y = 2" (val y: int) be matched against itself, and it will thus be marked as being used.
Does it make sense?
edited on: 2014-06-02 17:40
I see. This makes sense, but this is only an approximation.
If you have nested coercions, only the outermost one should do that. In practice, the signature of the compilation unit, or of a functor parameter (since we cannot know how it is used inside). But this may be harder to implement.
|The reasoning is that if a value is required to make an inclusion check succeed, it cannot be considered as unused. So even with nested coercions, this seems ok to me. But clearly, we don't do a full fledged data flow analysis, only a local approximation of it.|
|2014-06-02 10:40||frisch||New Issue|
|2014-06-02 10:48||frisch||Note Added: 0011618|
|2014-06-02 10:56||shinwell||Note Added: 0011619|
|2014-06-02 10:56||shinwell||Assigned To||=> garrigue|
|2014-06-02 10:56||shinwell||Status||new => acknowledged|
|2014-06-02 10:57||shinwell||Status||acknowledged => assigned|
|2014-06-02 11:03||frisch||Assigned To||garrigue => frisch|
|2014-06-02 11:03||frisch||Note Added: 0011620|
|2014-06-02 11:14||frisch||Note Added: 0011621|
|2014-06-02 11:17||frisch||Note Deleted: 0011620|
|2014-06-02 11:20||shinwell||Status||assigned => resolved|
|2014-06-02 11:20||shinwell||Fixed in Version||=> 4.02.0+dev|
|2014-06-02 11:20||shinwell||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2014-06-02 12:13||garrigue||Note Added: 0011622|
|2014-06-02 17:20||frisch||Note Added: 0011624|
|2014-06-02 17:24||shinwell||Status||resolved => assigned|
|2014-06-02 17:38||garrigue||Note Added: 0011625|
|2014-06-02 17:40||garrigue||Note Edited: 0011625||View Revisions|
|2014-06-02 17:51||frisch||Note Added: 0011626|
|2014-06-02 18:47||frisch||Status||assigned => resolved|
|2015-12-11 19:27||xleroy||Status||resolved => closed|
|2017-02-23 16:45||doligez||Category||OCaml typing => typing|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2011 MantisBT Group|