Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Maxim Kokryashkin <m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org>
Cc: Sergey Bronnikov <estetus@gmail.com>,
	tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v1] Fix BC_UCLO insertion for returns.
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 16:45:21 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <06ef0ded-e52e-eae2-1046-72cda475f2ae@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1688643085.266702017@f729.i.mail.ru>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4138 bytes --]

Test requires jit and it failed on jobs without a JIT

Fixed!

On 7/6/23 14:31, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote:
> Hi!
> Thanks for the fixes!
> A few CI jobs are red, please address them.
> --
> Best regards,
> Maxim Kokryashkin
>
>         Hi, Max!
>
>         Thanks for review! Added more comments to the test and commit
>         message.
>
>         New changes force-pushed to the branch. Please take a look.
>
>         S.
>
>         On 6/7/23 14:35, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote:
>>         Hi, Sergey and Sergey!
>>
>>                 Hi, Sergey!
>>                 Thanks for the patch!
>>                 Please, consider my comments below.
>>
>>                 On 30.05.23, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:
>>                 > From: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org>
>>                 >
>>                 > Contributed by XmiliaH.
>>                 >
>>                 > (cherry-picked from commit
>>                 93a65d3cc263aef2d2feb3d7ff2206aca3bee17e)
>>                 >
>>                 > After emitting bytecode instruction BC_FNEW fixup
>>                 is not required,
>>
>>             Typo: s/bytecode/the bytecode
>>
>         Fixed, thanks!
>
>>                 > because FuncState will set a flag PROTO_CHILD that
>>                 will trigger emitting
>>                 > a pair of instructions BC_UCLO and BC_RET (see
>>                 <src/lj_parse.c:2355>)
>>                 > and BC_RET will close all upvalues from base equal
>>                 to 0.
>>
>>                 This part describes why replacing UCLO with FNEW is
>>                 good enough and
>>                 better than just deleting
>>                 | case BC_UCLO: return;
>>                 But the original problem is that some of BC_RET are
>>                 not fixup-ed, due to
>>                 early return, if UCLO is obtained before, those leads
>>                 to VM
>>                 inconsistency after return from the function. Please,
>>                 mention this too.
>>
>>             Agree here, it is hard to get what the patch is about
>>             from that description,
>>             without diving into the changes.
>>
>         Added more details.
>
>         <snipped>
>>
>>                 Also, before the patch I got the following assertion
>>                 in JIT:
>>
>>                 | LUA_PATH="src/?.lua;;" src/luajit -Ohotloop=1 -e '
>>                 |
>>                 | local function missing_uclo()
>>                 | while true do -- luacheck: ignore
>>                 | local f
>>                 | if false then break end
>>                 | while true do
>>                 | if f then
>>                 | return f
>>                 | end
>>                 | f = function()
>>                 | return f
>>                 | end
>>                 | end
>>                 | end
>>                 | end
>>                 | f = missing_uclo()
>>                 | print(f())
>>                 | f = missing_uclo()
>>                 | print(f())
>>                 | '
>>                 | 3.1002202036551
>>                 | luajit:
>>                 /home/burii/reviews/luajit/lj-819-missing-uclo/src/lj_record.c:135:
>>                 rec_check_slots: Assertion `((((((tr))>>24) &
>>                 IRT_TYPE) - (TRef)(IRT_NUM) <= (TRef)
>>                 | (IRT_INT-IRT_NUM)))' failed.
>>                 | Aborted
>>
>>                 I don't sure that we should test this particular
>>                 failure too, since the
>>                 origin of the problem is the incorrect emitted bytecode.
>>
>>                 Thoughts?
>>
>>             We should not, because it is most likely caused by the issue
>>             that was fixed in the LuaJIT/LuaJIT@5c46f477.
>>
>         assert in rec_check_slots could be for many reasons, so I
>         added a testcase for compiler too.
>
>>
>>                 > --
>>                 > 2.34.1
>>                 >
>>
>>                 --
>>                 Best regards,
>>                 Sergey Kaplun
>>
>>             --
>>             Best regards,
>>             Maxim Kokryashkin
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12264 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2023-07-06 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-30 16:56 Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2023-06-06 12:51 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2023-06-07 11:35   ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-06  9:43     ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-06 11:31       ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-06 13:45         ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2023-07-06 21:12           ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-06  9:40   ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-09 13:15     ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-10 14:53       ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-13  7:57         ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-13  9:55           ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-13 10:25             ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2023-07-20 18:37 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=06ef0ded-e52e-eae2-1046-72cda475f2ae@tarantool.org \
    --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=estetus@gmail.com \
    --cc=m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org \
    --cc=sergeyb@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v1] Fix BC_UCLO insertion for returns.' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox