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
36 lines
678 B
Kotlin
Vendored
36 lines
678 B
Kotlin
Vendored
// FIR_IDENTICAL
|
|
// LANGUAGE: +BreakContinueInInlineLambdas
|
|
// DUMP_LOCAL_DECLARATION_SIGNATURES
|
|
// TARGET_BACKEND: JVM_IR
|
|
// IGNORE_ERRORS
|
|
// WITH_STDLIB
|
|
|
|
// MUTE_SIGNATURE_COMPARISON_K2: ANY
|
|
// ^ KT-57428
|
|
|
|
inline fun foo(block: () -> Unit) { block() }
|
|
|
|
inline fun bar(block1: () -> Unit, noinline block2: () -> Unit) {
|
|
block1()
|
|
block2()
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun test1() {
|
|
while (true) {
|
|
foo { break }
|
|
foo { continue }
|
|
foo(fun () { break })
|
|
foo(fun () { continue })
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fun test2() {
|
|
while (true) {
|
|
bar({break}, {})
|
|
bar({continue}, {})
|
|
|
|
bar(fun () {break}, fun () {})
|
|
bar(fun () {continue}, fun () {})
|
|
}
|
|
}
|