From: Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: "Igor Munkin" <imun@tarantool.org>
Cc: "Maxim Kokryashkin" <max.kokryashkin@gmail.com>,
tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 01:21:24 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1644877284.438277158@f461.i.mail.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yga1IpOqZRfgGQVC@tarantool.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3154 bytes --]
Hi!
Thanks for the review!
Here is the new commit message:
=======================================================
test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call
LuaJIT does not provide information about tail calls,
unlike, Lua 5.1 does, so a traceback in LuaJIT may be different.
Consider this chunk of code:
```
local function f(n)
if n > 0 then
return f(n - 1)
else
coroutine.yield()
end
end
local co = coroutine.create(f)
coroutine.resume(co, 3)
print(debug.traceback(co))
```
For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'yield'
test.lua:5: in function <test.lua:1>
```
And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
```
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'yield'
test.lua:5: in function <test.lua:1>
(tail call): ?
(tail call): ?
(tail call): ?
```
This commit adapts the corresponding test to the behavior of LuaJIT, so
it doesn't check tail calls anymore.
Resolves tarantool/tarantool#5703
Part of tarantool/tarantool#5870
=======================================================
New CI branch: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio-full-ci
--
Best regards,
Maxim Kokryashkin
>
>>Max,
>>
>>Thanks for the patch! LGTM, except a couple of nits.
>>
>>On 09.11.21, Максим Корякшин wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Sergey! Thanks for the review!
>>> Here is the new commit message considering your comments:
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call
>>>
>>> LuaJIT does not provide information about tail calls,
>>> unlike, Lua 5.1 does, so a traceback in LuaJIT may be different.
>>>
>>> Consider this chunck of code:
>>
>>Typo: s/chunck/chunk/.
>>
>>> ```
>>> local function f(n)
>>> if n > 0 then
>>> return f(n - 1)
>>> else
>>> coroutine.yield()
>>> end
>>> end
>>>
>>> local co = coroutine.create(f)
>>> coroutine.resume(co, 3)
>>> print(debug.traceback(co))
>>> ```
>>>
>>> For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
>>> stack traceback:
>>> [C]: in function 'yield'
>>> test.lua:5: in function <test.lua:1>
>>> ```
>>>
>>> And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
>>> ```
>>> stack traceback:
>>> [C]: in function 'yield'
>>> test.lua:5: in function <test.lua:1>
>>> (tail call): ?
>>> (tail call): ?
>>> (tail call): ?
>>> ```
>>>
>>> This commit adapts the corresponding test to the behavior of LuaJIT, so
>>> it doesn't check tail calls anymore.
>>>
>>
>>Please, add "Resolves tarantool/tarantool#5703" here.
>>
>>> Part of tarantool/tarantool#5870
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> CI: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Maxim Kokryashkin
>>
>><snipped>
>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>IM
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5237 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-14 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-24 17:25 Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches
2021-09-24 18:28 ` Максим Корякшин via Tarantool-patches
2021-10-11 15:11 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches
2021-11-09 16:59 ` Максим Корякшин via Tarantool-patches
2022-02-11 19:12 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches
2022-02-14 22:21 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2022-02-17 16:36 ` 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=1644877284.438277158@f461.i.mail.ru \
--to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
--cc=imun@tarantool.org \
--cc=m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org \
--cc=max.kokryashkin@gmail.com \
--subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call' \
/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