From: Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: "Sergey Bronnikov" <sergeyb@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, 06 Jul 2023 14:31:25 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1688643085.266702017@f729.i.mail.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cecef809-3b23-05aa-5f20-110e4cc89843@tarantool.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2828 bytes --]
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: 4968 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-06 11:31 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 [this message]
2023-07-06 13:45 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches
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=1688643085.266702017@f729.i.mail.ru \
--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