Skip to content

Conversation

@jgonet
Copy link
Contributor

@jgonet jgonet commented Mar 13, 2025

These changes are made under both the "Apache 2.0" and the "GNU Lesser General
Public License 2.1 or later" license terms (dual license).

SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later

@jgonet jgonet mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2025
36 tasks
Copy link
Collaborator

@bettio bettio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some minor changes are required.
Also it look something that we really missed in release-0.6, if it doesn't take you too much time I would rebase this on top of release-0.6. In that case let's also update the changelog.

erlang:is_pid/1, {.bif.base.type = BIFFunctionType, .bif.bif1_ptr = bif_erlang_is_pid_1}
erlang:is_reference/1, {.bif.base.type = BIFFunctionType, .bif.bif1_ptr = bif_erlang_is_reference_1}
erlang:is_tuple/1, {.bif.base.type = BIFFunctionType, .bif.bif1_ptr = bif_erlang_is_tuple_1}
erlang:is_record/2,{.bif.base.type = BIFFunctionType, .bif.bif2_ptr = bif_erlang_is_record}
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

question: do we know if is_record/3 is used in any context?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We didn't come across any usage, I didn't want to add it preemptively.

@jgonet jgonet force-pushed the jgonet/is-record branch from 683621c to 5344799 Compare March 14, 2025 17:02
@jgonet jgonet changed the base branch from main to release-0.6 March 14, 2025 17:02
@jgonet jgonet requested a review from bettio March 14, 2025 17:09
Copy link
Collaborator

@bettio bettio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's make sure we are compatible with BEAM behavior.
Last, before commiting the fixed version, let's run erlfmt in order to make sure that sources are properly formatted.

@bettio
Copy link
Collaborator

bettio commented Mar 16, 2025

A number of CI fixes has been made in release-0.6. Let's rebase it on latest release-0.6.

@bettio bettio mentioned this pull request Mar 16, 2025
3 tasks
@jgonet jgonet force-pushed the jgonet/is-record branch 3 times, most recently from 8f7f9a8 to 8274823 Compare March 22, 2025 19:08
@jgonet jgonet requested a review from bettio March 22, 2025 19:10
@jgonet jgonet force-pushed the jgonet/is-record branch from 8274823 to fe7261d Compare March 22, 2025 19:26
Copy link
Collaborator

@bettio bettio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I found a last minute compatibility issue with OTP.

@jgonet jgonet force-pushed the jgonet/is-record branch from fe7261d to 370559b Compare March 31, 2025 14:33
Signed-off-by: Jakub Gonet <jakub.gonet@swmansion.com>
@jgonet jgonet force-pushed the jgonet/is-record branch from 370559b to 1b64297 Compare March 31, 2025 14:35
@bettio bettio changed the title Add erlang:is_record/2 Add erlang:is_record/2 Mar 31, 2025
@bettio bettio merged commit 1cb7e56 into atomvm:release-0.6 Mar 31, 2025
102 checks passed
bettio added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2025
Merge is_record BIF (PR #1564) and fixes (such as PR #1615 and #1617) from
release-0.6 branch.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants