Hi, Sergey!
Updated and force-pushed.
Sergey
Hi, Sergey! Thanks for the decent work! I've checked, at a rough guess, that there are no line numbers to be updated in these changed files. LGTM, with an ignorable suggestion below. On 12.02.25, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:The patch sets a max length with 80 symbols for lines with code and max length with 66 symbols for lines with comments in luacheck configuration file [1] and fixes files where this length is exceeding. 1. https://luacheck.readthedocs.io/en/stable/warnings.html#line-length-limits --- Changes v2: - Added fixes according to comments by Sergey Kaplun. - Reduced a max length of lines with comments (80 -> 66). - Fixed warnings triggered by reducing max limit of lines with comments. Branch: https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/ligurio/gh-xxxx-set-max-length .luacheckrc | 3 + .../fix-argv-handling.test.lua | 4 ++ .../fix-binary-number-parsing.test.lua | 2 + .../gh-3196-incorrect-string-length.test.lua | 3 + ...gh-4773-tonumber-fail-on-NUL-char.test.lua | 9 +-- test/tarantool-tests/gh-6163-min-max.test.lua | 68 ++++++++++++------- .../gh-7745-oom-on-trace.test.lua | 3 +- .../lj-1004-oom-error-frame.test.lua | 6 +- .../lj-1116-redzones-checks.test.lua | 2 + .../lj-1149-g-number-formating-bufov.test.lua | 4 +- .../lj-366-strtab-correct-size.test.lua | 17 +++-- .../lj-416-xor-before-jcc.test.lua | 28 ++++---- .../lj-494-table-chain-infinite-loop.test.lua | 14 ++-- ...lj-505-fold-no-strref-for-ptrdiff.test.lua | 3 +- .../lj-524-fold-conv-respect-src-irt.test.lua | 4 +- .../lj-603-err-snap-restore.test.lua | 6 +- ...-611-gc64-inherit-frame-slot-orig.test.lua | 2 + .../lj-611-gc64-inherit-frame-slot.test.lua | 2 + .../lj-624-jloop-snapshot-pc.test.lua | 4 +- .../lj-688-snap-ir-rename.test.lua | 2 + .../lj-737-snap-use-def-upvalues.test.lua | 3 +- .../lj-819-fix-missing-uclo.test.lua | 49 +++++++------ ...-865-cross-generation-mach-o-file.test.lua | 4 ++ ...lj-918-fma-numerical-accuracy-jit.test.lua | 4 ++ .../lj-918-fma-numerical-accuracy.test.lua | 4 ++ .../lj-962-stack-overflow-report.test.lua | 3 +- .../lj-962-stack-overflow-report/script.lua | 3 +- .../mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua | 2 + .../misclib-getmetrics-lapi.test.lua | 9 ++- .../or-144-gc64-asmref-l.test.lua | 4 ++ .../or-232-unsink-64-kptr.test.lua | 24 ++++--- .../profilers/gh-5688-tool-cli-flag.test.lua | 3 +- .../gh-5813-resolving-of-c-symbols.test.lua | 9 +-- .../gh-5994-memprof-human-readable.test.lua | 3 +- ...17-profile-parsers-error-handling.test.lua | 3 +- tools/sysprof/parse.lua | 6 +- 36 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-)<snipped>diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua index 73c24b66..fe0969cf 100644 --- a/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ local test = tap.test('mark-conv-non-weak'):skipcond({ }) test:plan(1) +-- luacheck: push no max_comment_line_lengthI suggest the following patch instead to prevent the warning only for necessary part of the IR dump: =================================================================== diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua index 73c24b66..4396ee58 100644 --- a/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/mark-conv-non-weak.test.lua @@ -9,20 +9,22 @@ test:plan(1) -- instruction is emitted. See `loop_unrool` in `lj_opt_loop.c`. local data = {0, 0.1, 0, 0 / 0} ---- XXX: The sum is required to be initialized with a non-zero --- floating point value; otherwise, `0023 + num ADD 0017 0007` --- instruction in the IR below becomes `ADDOV` and the `CONV int.num` --- conversion is used by it. +-- XXX: The sum is required to be initialized with a non-zero +-- floating point value. +-- Otherwise, `0023 + num ADD 0017 0007` instruction in the +-- IR below becomes `ADDOV` and the `CONV int.num` conversion is +-- used by it. local sum = 0.1 jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') --- XXX: The test fails before the patch only --- for `DUALNUM` mode. All of the IRs below are --- produced by the corresponding LuaJIT build. +-- XXX: The test fails before the patch only for `DUALNUM` mode. +-- All of the IRs below are produced by the corresponding LuaJIT +-- build. --- When the trace is recorded, the IR --- is the following before the patch: +-- luacheck: push no max_comment_line_length +-- When the trace is recorded, the IR is the following before the +-- patch: ---- TRACE 1 IR -- .... SNAP #0 [ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ] -- 0001 u8 XLOAD [0x100dac521] V @@ -104,6 +106,8 @@ jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') ---- TRACE 1 exit 0 ---- TRACE 1 exit 2 -- +-- luacheck: pop +-- -- Before the patch, the `0022 > int CONV 0017 int.num` -- instruction is omitted due to DCE, which results in the -- third side exit being taken, instead of the second, =================================================================== Thoughts?
I've no objections, applied.
-- XXX: These values were chosen to create type instability -- in the loop-carried dependency, so the checked `CONV int.num` -- instruction is emitted. See `loop_unrool` in `lj_opt_loop.c`. @@ -114,6 +115,7 @@ jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') -- -- Note that DCE happens on the assembly part of the trace -- compilation. That is why `CONV` is present in both IRs. +-- luacheck: pop for _, val in ipairs(data) do if val == val then<snipped>