[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches]

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:
```
local function checktraceback (co, p)
  local tb = debug.traceback(co)
  local i = 0
  for l in string.gmatch(tb, "[^\n]+\n?") do
    assert(i == 0 or string.find(l, p[i]))
    i = i+1
  end
  assert(p[i] == nil)
end

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)
checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
```

For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
```
stack traceback:
        [C]: in function 'yield'
        db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
```

And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
```
stack traceback:
        [C]: in function 'yield'
        db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
        (tail call): ?
        (tail call): ?
        (tail call): ?
```

Closes tarantool/tarantool#5703
Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845
Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473
---
Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5703
GitHub branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio

 test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
index 56f59ea8..f254cde6 100644
--- a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
+++ b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
@@ -475,9 +475,8 @@ end
 
 local co = coroutine.create(f)
 coroutine.resume(co, 3)
--- FIXME: Behavior is different for LuaJIT.
--- See the comment to `h()` above. Test is disabled for LuaJIT.
--- checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
+-- Test is adapted to the behaviour of LuaJIT.
+checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua"})
 
 
 co = coroutine.create(function (x)
-- 
2.33.0

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Максим Корякшин via Tarantool-patches]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2707 bytes --]


Hi!
I have fixed a typo in the commit, so here is the diff:
=============================================================
diff --git a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
index f254cde6..fce85b19 100644
--- a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
+++ b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
@@ -475,7 +475,7 @@ end
 local co = coroutine.create(f)
 coroutine.resume(co, 3)
--- Test is adapted to the behaviour of LuaJIT.
+-- Test is adapted to the behavior of LuaJIT.
 checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua"})
=============================================================
 
Best regards,
Maxim Kokryashkin
   
>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:
>```
>local function checktraceback (co, p)
>  local tb = debug.traceback(co)
>  local i = 0
>  for l in string.gmatch(tb, "[^\n]+\n?") do
>    assert(i == 0 or string.find(l, p[i]))
>    i = i+1
>  end
>  assert(p[i] == nil)
>end
>
>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)
>checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
>```
>
>For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
>```
>stack traceback:
>        [C]: in function 'yield'
>        db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>```
>
>And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
>```
>stack traceback:
>        [C]: in function 'yield'
>        db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>        (tail call): ?
>        (tail call): ?
>        (tail call): ?
>```
>
>Closes tarantool/tarantool#5703
>Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845
>Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473
>---
>Issue:  https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5703
>GitHub branch:  https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio
>
> test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>index 56f59ea8..f254cde6 100644
>--- a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>+++ b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>@@ -475,9 +475,8 @@ end
> 
> local co = coroutine.create(f)
> coroutine.resume(co, 3)
>--- FIXME: Behavior is different for LuaJIT.
>--- See the comment to `h()` above. Test is disabled for LuaJIT.
>--- checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
>+-- Test is adapted to the behaviour of LuaJIT.
>+checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua"})
> 
> 
> co = coroutine.create(function (x)
>--
>2.33.0
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3812 bytes --]

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches]

Hi, Maxim!

Thanks for the patch!

LGTM except a few nits, regarding the commit message.

On 24.09.21, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote:
> LuaJIT does not provide information about tail calls

Typo: s/calls/calls,/

> unlike, Lua 5.1 does, so a traceback in LuaJIT may be different.
> 
> Consider this chunck of code:
> ```
> local function checktraceback (co, p)
>   local tb = debug.traceback(co)
>   local i = 0
>   for l in string.gmatch(tb, "[^\n]+\n?") do
>     assert(i == 0 or string.find(l, p[i]))
>     i = i+1
>   end
>   assert(p[i] == nil)
> end
> 
> 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)
> checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
> ```
> 
> For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
> ```
> stack traceback:
>         [C]: in function 'yield'
>         db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
> ```
> 
> And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
> ```
> stack traceback:
>         [C]: in function 'yield'
>         db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>         (tail call): ?
>         (tail call): ?
>         (tail call): ?
> ```

Please provide a simple example in the commit message. This is too
monstrous. Also, it is a good practice to mention what the patch does.

> 
> Closes tarantool/tarantool#5703
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473

Looks like it should be 5870 instead 4473. Also, 5845 is already
closed.

> ---
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5703
> GitHub branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio
> 
>  test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
> index 56f59ea8..f254cde6 100644
> --- a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
> +++ b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua

<snipped>

> -- 
> 2.33.0
> 

-- 
Best regards,
Sergey Kaplun

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Максим Корякшин via Tarantool-patches]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3519 bytes --]


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:
```
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.
 
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
  
>Понедельник, 11 октября 2021, 18:13 +03:00 от Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org>:
> 
>Hi, Maxim!
>
>Thanks for the patch!
>
>LGTM except a few nits, regarding the commit message.
>
>On 24.09.21, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote:
>> LuaJIT does not provide information about tail calls
>
>Typo: s/calls/calls,/
>
>> unlike, Lua 5.1 does, so a traceback in LuaJIT may be different.
>>
>> Consider this chunck of code:
>> ```
>> local function checktraceback (co, p)
>> local tb = debug.traceback(co)
>> local i = 0
>> for l in string.gmatch(tb, "[^\n]+\n?") do
>> assert(i == 0 or string.find(l, p[i]))
>> i = i+1
>> end
>> assert(p[i] == nil)
>> end
>>
>> 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)
>> checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
>> ```
>>
>> For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
>> ```
>> stack traceback:
>> [C]: in function 'yield'
>> db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>> ```
>>
>> And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
>> ```
>> stack traceback:
>> [C]: in function 'yield'
>> db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>> (tail call): ?
>> (tail call): ?
>> (tail call): ?
>> ```
>
>Please provide a simple example in the commit message. This is too
>monstrous. Also, it is a good practice to mention what the patch does.
>
>>
>> Closes tarantool/tarantool#5703
>> Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845
>> Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473
>
>Looks like it should be 5870 instead 4473. Also, 5845 is already
>closed.
>
>> ---
>> Issue:  https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5703
>> GitHub branch:  https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio
>>
>> test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua | 5 ++---
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>> index 56f59ea8..f254cde6 100644
>> --- a/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>> +++ b/test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua
>
><snipped>
>
>> --
>> 2.33.0
>>
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Sergey Kaplun
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5372 bytes --]

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches]

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

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking traceback in tail call

[Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches]

Max,

I've checked the patch into all long-term branches in tarantool/luajit
and bumped a new version in 1.10, 2.8 and master.

On 24.09.21, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote:
> 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:
> ```
> local function checktraceback (co, p)
>   local tb = debug.traceback(co)
>   local i = 0
>   for l in string.gmatch(tb, "[^\n]+\n?") do
>     assert(i == 0 or string.find(l, p[i]))
>     i = i+1
>   end
>   assert(p[i] == nil)
> end
> 
> 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)
> checktraceback(co, {"yield", "db.lua", "tail", "tail", "tail"})
> ```
> 
> For LuaJIT traceback looks like the following:
> ```
> stack traceback:
>         [C]: in function 'yield'
>         db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
> ```
> 
> And for Lua 5.1 it looks like the following:
> ```
> stack traceback:
>         [C]: in function 'yield'
>         db.lua:436: in function <db.lua:434>
>         (tail call): ?
>         (tail call): ?
>         (tail call): ?
> ```
> 
> Closes tarantool/tarantool#5703
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845
> Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473
> ---
> Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5703
> GitHub branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/fckxorg/gh-5703-adapt-traceback-tail-call-PUC-Rio
> 
>  test/PUC-Rio-Lua-5.1-tests/db.lua | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

<snipped>

> -- 
> 2.33.0
> 

-- 
Best regards,
IM