implicit return lines reported active by coverage but not tracked in julia 1.10.2 about julia HOT 7 OPEN

(note: I forgot to remove the greet() function but it looks labeled with a - instead of the expectable 0, as it is untested code. Is that right?)

adding the report from 1.9.3 just for completeness:

        - module covtest
        - 
        - greet() = print("Hello World!")
        - 
        1 function testfun(n)
        1     [ begin
       10         x = i
       10         x = x * x
       10         x = x + x
       10         x = x / x
       10         x
        -     end for i=1:n]
        - end
        - 
        1 function testfun2(n)
        1     a = n
        1     a *= n
        1     a += n
        1     a /= n
        1     a
        - end
        - 
        - end # module covtest

...anyway so the greet() not being reported at all is probably not a regression but I still wouldn't say it's optimal.

from julia.

Likely related to: #53354
which was introduced between 1.10.1 and 1.10.2
cc @JeffBezanson

from julia.

I just hit this today.

from julia.

(note: I forgot to remove the greet() function but it looks labeled with a - instead of the expectable 0, as it is untested code. Is that right?)

from julia.

What was the latest version where this worke? 1.10.1, 1.9?

from julia.

Looks like all was OK on 1.9.3 and 1.9.4 (e.g. here on master: https://github.com/COBREXA/JSONFBCModels.jl/actions/runs/7223225523/job/19681839328 ). In this specific case I found on this merge request: COBREXA/JSONFBCModels.jl#8 and this pipeline: https://github.com/COBREXA/JSONFBCModels.jl/actions/runs/7875684795/job/22202840125 which is 1.10.2.

I can try to bisect later, but I didn't have time to do much stuff lately so please don't count on me there 😅

from julia.

In other news, I'm getting several similar cases with functions that are easy to inline, such as:

Base.:+(a::Int, b::Whatevs) = b+a
Base.:+(a::Whatevs, b::Int)= combine_whatevs_with_int(a,b)

The first line never gets coverage; even calls to 0 + Whatevs() generate coverage ticks for the second line.

I somehow assume there's an over-zealous optimization somewhere in the way.

from julia.