Sergej Jaskiewicz
6e8283a6fe
The reason #1 for this feature is that we want to test IdSignatures generated for declarations. Currently, there is no (easy) way to ensure that a change in the signature building logic doesn't cause any breaking changes wrt klibs. Now, most IdSignatures include hashed mangled names in them, so even if we catch a regression where the included hash changes, there would be no way of knowing immediately what caused it, unless we'd also have mangled names in the expectations. The reason #2 is to test the manglers themselves. Currently, there are no tests for them. They heavily duplicate each other, this is already causing issues (see KT-57427) that would be very hard to catch without these tests. ^KT-58238 Fixed
21 lines
779 B
Kotlin
Vendored
21 lines
779 B
Kotlin
Vendored
// CHECK:
|
|
// Mangled name: #testForBreak1(kotlin.collections.List<kotlin.String>){}
|
|
// Public signature: /testForBreak1|859715268937219552[0]
|
|
fun testForBreak1(ss: List<String>): Unit
|
|
|
|
// CHECK:
|
|
// Mangled name: #testForBreak2(kotlin.collections.List<kotlin.String>){}
|
|
// Public signature: /testForBreak2|-8316570653848899578[0]
|
|
fun testForBreak2(ss: List<String>): Unit
|
|
|
|
// CHECK:
|
|
// Mangled name: #testForContinue1(kotlin.collections.List<kotlin.String>){}
|
|
// Public signature: /testForContinue1|1338147304246344442[0]
|
|
fun testForContinue1(ss: List<String>): Unit
|
|
|
|
// CHECK:
|
|
// Mangled name: #testForContinue2(kotlin.collections.List<kotlin.String>){}
|
|
// Public signature: /testForContinue2|-2490600607304201756[0]
|
|
fun testForContinue2(ss: List<String>): Unit
|
|
|