From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D665AA586; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:51:09 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 48D665AA586 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1692089469; bh=kjhZuPKHmfap/wHYAmuoJmCCewJ98Qi9NvbdLe28rFk=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=RvkMEXQ0KNYpr5gslYVley2Txj2SW8n72bIX65dShRGpyPZKKEC5xHQNo91W9nsPc CRBjEi2Inxi3swYxyBdNAg/FyoIN81LMY2bRKjAGxl1yOCZXABDdeOyEKifFSyeRR1 RcNTs+rEnSF6lcPPnwqykUwna4MTelZFUlzlUnOw= Received: from smtp43.i.mail.ru (smtp43.i.mail.ru [95.163.41.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD71A5AA586 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:51:07 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org BD71A5AA586 Received: by smtp43.i.mail.ru with esmtpa (envelope-from ) id 1qVpla-00CukG-38; Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:51:07 +0300 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:51:06 +0300 To: Sergey Kaplun Cc: Sergey Bronnikov , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, max.kokryashkin@gmail.com Message-ID: <7zsu5k74brzdwreefaqijz6z6qzi4pflv36v6mmnkcelrrfud7@vdr3ynqwu7gq> References: <6426e58a9a72691ccffc84001c21e363c8da6312.1690300762.git.sergeyb@tarantool.org> <5t3vejxwlcpd3fczyenum4527mtwtmt6qd4agwrxhnkt3zdtob@62fmw5pdbhqg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Mailru-Src: smtp X-7564579A: B8F34718100C35BD X-77F55803: 4F1203BC0FB41BD969E04B5EED670DC804E38A5F9341E5D89B81E0241E25E490182A05F538085040A0D09927532E9AD5E4799FEF020C5889A5A42A9BBD1CE63C616C4FC9BB7355AB X-C1DE0DAB: 0D63561A33F958A55F77B969C69D9B544DEE090B164EE28184F8764BE7376948F87CCE6106E1FC07E67D4AC08A07B9B065B78C30F681404DCB5012B2E24CD356 X-C8649E89: 1C3962B70DF3F0ADE00A9FD3E00BEEDF77DD89D51EBB7742DC8270968E61249B1004E42C50DC4CA955A7F0CF078B5EC49A30900B95165D3416EA6E382A5BB176A00EAC2F50856CD721A91F5B2E4BC06DC2C60FDD67A769581570BA0B7459420F1D7E09C32AA3244C380A933B41BFD0571BCBB6BAB87CE3BB3C6EB905E3A8056BBAD658CF5C8AB4025DA084F8E80FEBD396F07DFE06A4A8314E894E437E78228B66933FA05BD8EF0CAD958392AE682691 X-D57D3AED: 3ZO7eAau8CL7WIMRKs4sN3D3tLDjz0dLbV79QFUyzQ2Ujvy7cMT6pYYqY16iZVKkSc3dCLJ7zSJH7+u4VD18S7Vl4ZUrpaVfd2+vE6kuoey4m4VkSEu530nj6fImhcD4MUrOEAnl0W826KZ9Q+tr5ycPtXkTV4k65bRjmOUUP8cvGozZ33TWg5HZplvhhXbhDGzqmQDTd6OAevLeAnq3Ra9uf7zvY2zzsIhlcp/Y7m53TZgf2aB4JOg4gkr2biojJ1ceUZTkownJFiAZoLDn1A== X-Mailru-Sender: 11C2EC085EDE56FA38FD4C59F7EFE407B30DB7AAE3FE2E8D4B64FECF621B839F027D9DD7AE851095D51284F0FE6F529ABC7555A253F5B200DF104D74F62EE79D27EC13EC74F6107F4198E0F3ECE9B5443453F38A29522196 X-Mras: OK Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] Fix embedded bytecode loader. X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Maxim Kokryashkin Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" Hi! Ok, makes sense. LGTM, then, but I really want Sergey to include the `smoke test` term somewhere in the commit description, so it is obvious, that we are testing the basic functionality. On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 02:09:27PM +0300, Sergey Kaplun wrote: > Hi, Max, Sergey! > The patch is LGTM, after adding the test case (without additional CI > job, if you don't want), see rational below. > > On 31.07.23, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote: > > Hi, Sergey! > > > > > > tests patch partially. > > Typo: s/tests the patch/ > > > > Well, I've tried to run that test on x32 machine, and nothing happened. > > I think we should backport this patch without tests then, since this > > test seems irrelevant to the problem. What do you think? > > > > Also, it is kinda strange, that you are talking about a test in a patch > > without any tests. You need to either mention that the test is present in > > the next commit, or move that test here. > > The problem is perfectly repoduced for me if use instructions from [1]. > > I suppose that we should add this test, because it: > 1) Shows the problem for the actual build that can be done by the user. > 2) Still tests LuaJIT loader. > > > > > > > Sergey Bronnikov: > > > * added the description > > > --- > > > src/lj_bcread.c | 10 +++++----- > > > src/lj_lex.c | 6 ++++++ > > > src/lj_lex.h | 1 + > > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.34.1 > > [1]: https://github.com/LuaJIT/LuaJIT/issues/549 > > -- > Best regards, > Sergey Kaplun