Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] Fix predict_next() in parser (again).

[Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>]

Hi,


On 8/29/23 17:43, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> Hi, Sergey!
> Thanks for the updates!
> LGTM, after fixing several minor comments below.
>
> On 29.08.23, Sergey Bronnikov wrote:

<snipped>


> Part of tarantool/tarantool#8825
> ---
>
> PR:https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/pull/9054
> Branch:https://github.com/tarantool/luajit/tree/ligurio/lj-1054-incorrect-pc-value-predict_next
> Related issue:
> *https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1054
>
>    src/lj_parse.c                                 |  4 +++-
>    ...incorrect-pc-value-in-predict_next.test.lua | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> I suggest to use predict-next instead in filename and testname to be
> consistent with other tests.

Fixed:


--- 
a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1054-fix-incorrect-pc-value-in-predict_next.test.lua
+++ 
b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1054-fix-incorrect-pc-value-in-predict_next.test.lua
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
  local tap = require('tap')
-local test = tap.test('lj-1054-incorrect-pc-value-in-predict_next')
+local test = tap.test('lj-1054-fix-incorrect-pc-value-in-predict_next')
  test:plan(3)


<snipped>


>>>> +-- See alsohttps://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/528
> Nit: Missed dot at the end of the sentence.
> Typo: s/528/1054./
>
> <snipped>
>

  -- The test demonstrates a problem with out-of-boundary
  -- access to a stack. The problem can be easily observed
  -- on execution the sample by LuaJIT by ASAN, sanitizer
  -- reports a heap-based buffer overflow.
--- See also https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/528
+-- See also https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1054.

  local res_f = loadstring([[
  a, b, c = 1, 2, 3