Re: PM_TAGGED and PM_TAGGED_LOCAL being set simultaneously (functions -T -t f)

[Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I figured I'd write a test to at least ensure we don't change the
> behaviour by accident (it would be too easy to change the if/else chain
> that tests the bitflags), but ran into another question along the way.
> Look at the first added test:
> 
> diff --git a/Test/E02xtrace.ztst b/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
> index 10e8b8886..520b7745f 100644
> --- a/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
> +++ b/Test/E02xtrace.ztst
> @@ -225,3 +225,38 @@
>  >the definition didn't execute it
>  >runs
>  
> + f() g
> + g() :
> + functions -t f
> + f
> +0:functions -t smoke test #1
> +?+f:4> g
> +?+g:4> :
> +
> + f() g
> + g() { () : }
> + functions -t f
> + f
> +0:functions -t smoke test #2
> +?+f:4> g
> +?+g:0> '(anon)'
> +?+(anon):0> :
> +
> + f() g
> + g() :
> + (
> +  functions -T f
> +  functions -t f
> +  f
> + )
> + (
> +  functions -t f
> +  functions -T f
> +  f
> + )
> +0:ensure the behaviour  of 'functions -Tt f' doesn't change surreptitiously
> +?+f:6> g
> +?+f:11> g
> +F:If this test fails, the new behaviour may be 
> +F:workers/48591.
> +

Was this something you were planning on committing?

vq