Hi, Sergey! thanks for the fix! Bug is reproduced without fix (I've used incorrect C flag). LGTM Sergey On 3/4/26 13:34, Sergey Kaplun wrote: > Hi, Sergey! > > Thanks for the review! > See my answers below. > > On 04.03.26, Sergey Bronnikov wrote: >> Hi, Sergey, >> >> thanks for the patch! See my comments. >> >> Sergey >> >> On 3/2/26 10:52, Sergey Kaplun wrote: >>> From: Mike Pall >>> >>> Reported by Sergey Kaplun. >>> >>> (cherry picked from commit b1cd2f83b5d085bb71368b87c91a461be77d4364) >>> >>> `lj_opt_narrow_unm()` in the DUALNUM mode narrows doubles too >>> optimistic, missing 0 check. In that case, the narrowing of 0 is >>> incorrect. This leads to the assertion failure in `rec_check_slots()` >>> for the string obtained from the corresponding number. >>> >>> This patch fixes it by restricting the check of the given TValue. >>> >>> Sergey Kaplun: >>> * added the description and the test for the problem >>> >>> Part of tarantool/tarantool#12134 >>> --- >>> src/lj_opt_narrow.c | 4 +- >>> ...lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua | 49 +++++++++++++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua >>> >>> diff --git a/src/lj_opt_narrow.c b/src/lj_opt_narrow.c >>> index 6b6f20d3..6e3e9533 100644 >>> --- a/src/lj_opt_narrow.c >>> +++ b/src/lj_opt_narrow.c >>> @@ -553,9 +553,9 @@ TRef lj_opt_narrow_unm(jit_State *J, TRef rc, TValue *vc) >>> rc = conv_str_tonum(J, rc, vc); >>> if (tref_isinteger(rc)) { >>> uint32_t k = (uint32_t)numberVint(vc); >>> - if ((LJ_DUALNUM || k != 0) && k != 0x80000000u) { >>> + if ((tvisint(vc) || k != 0) && k != 0x80000000u) { >>> TRef zero = lj_ir_kint(J, 0); >>> - if (!LJ_DUALNUM) >>> + if (!tvisint(vc)) >>> emitir(IRTGI(IR_NE), rc, zero); >>> return emitir(IRTGI(IR_SUBOV), zero, rc); >>> } >>> diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 00000000..84f17953 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua >>> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ >>> +local tap = require('tap') >>> + >>> +-- This test demonstrates LuaJIT's incorrect narrowing >>> +-- optimization in the DUALNUM mode for 0. >>> +-- Seealsohttps://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/1418. >>> + >>> +local test = tap.test('lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0'):skipcond({ >>> + ['Test requires JIT enabled'] = not jit.status(), >>> +}) >>> + >> cannot reproduce an original bug with reverted fix. >> >> CMake configuration: CFLAGS=-DDUALNUM cmake -S . -B build >> -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug > LuaJIT should be configured like: > | cmake -DLUAJIT_NUMMODE=2 # ... > > > >>> +-- Reset hotcounts. >>> +jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') >>> + >>> +-- Hot trace. >>> +test_non_const_on_trace(2, 3) >>> +-- Record trace, use non zero result value to record. >> s/non zero/non-zero/ > Fixed, branch is force-pushed: > =================================================================== > diff --git a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua > index 84f17953..8f4185ef 100644 > --- a/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua > +++ b/test/tarantool-tests/lj-1418-dualnum-narrowing-minus-0.test.lua > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ jit.opt.start('hotloop=1') > > -- Hot trace. > test_non_const_on_trace(2, 3) > --- Record trace, use non zero result value to record. > +-- Record trace, use non-zero result value to record. > test_non_const_on_trace(2, 3) > -- Misbehaviour on trace with result zero value. > test:is(test_non_const_on_trace(2, 1), '-0', 'correct non-const value on trace') > =================================================================== > >>> +test_non_const_on_trace(2, 3) >>> +-- Misbehaviour on trace with result zero value. >>> +test:is(test_non_const_on_trace(2, 1), '-0', 'correct non-const value on trace') >>> + >>> +test:done(true)