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 31F106EC5D; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:41:37 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 31F106EC5D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1617349297; bh=jfUitVkcWVCMQZcJ+YOj9CJnhe7C0gaxHKtO+bvaj8w=; h=Date:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=IkCv4h5mK+ZFLECQ90F4iIxUT6zkNPlMK2K+SYZNJx3K/+99w0ljXL9VaiTVRvEXt ma5ILFn+arCXP3Woe9W/Li+qS0F2aK42vUtaTEy6i948IcKMEvFiBjvo1nZEBBGQTM E2accxm2V0rDjLkdSEcHgan2kGVQCFoh/eHcJ6XI= Received: from smtp38.i.mail.ru (smtp38.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2D656EC5D for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:41:36 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org C2D656EC5D Received: by smtp38.i.mail.ru with esmtpa (envelope-from ) id 1lSEQy-0006nO-04; Fri, 02 Apr 2021 10:41:36 +0300 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 10:40:41 +0300 To: Igor Munkin Message-ID: References: <9bf043d0714a15e51ca6e6f0778722da04e4c934.1616743343.git.skaplun@tarantool.org> <20210331095152.GH29703@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210331095152.GH29703@tarantool.org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eAau8CL7WIMRKs4sN3D3tLDjz0dLbV79QFUyzQ2Ujvy7cMT6pYYqY16iZVKkSc3dCLJ7zSJH7+u4VD18S7Vl4ZUrpaVfd2+vE6kuoey4m4VkSEu530nj6fImhcD4MUrOEAnl0W826KZ9Q+tr5ycPtXkTV4k65bRjmOUUP8cvGozZ33TWg5HZplvhhXbhDGzqmQDTd6OAevLeAnq3Ra9uf7zvY2zzsIhlcp/Y7m53TZgf2aB4JOg4gkr2biojiysexgWf3370Al0ytJXeEA== X-Mailru-Sender: 3B9A0136629DC91206CBC582EFEF4CB47222F526308AEB43818CE566F0A028AB687FB5F52D085FA9F2400F607609286E924004A7DEC283833C7120B22964430C52B393F8C72A41A89437F6177E88F7363CDA0F3B3F5B9367 X-Mras: Ok Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 luajit 21/30] test: disable test for getfenv in closure tailcall 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: Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Sergey Kaplun Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" Igor, Thanks for the review! On 31.03.21, Igor Munkin wrote: > Sergey, > > Thanks for the patch! LGTM, except the comments related to the wording. > > On 26.03.21, Sergey Kaplun wrote: > > LuaJIT doesn't take into account tail calls for call-level counting, so > > Minor: This is a good example, when the passive voice makes the sense > clearer. Consider the following: > | Tail calls are not taken into account for call-level counting. > > Otherwise it seems like LuaJIT doesn't take into account *tail calls for > call-level counting* (i.e. tail calls that are not used for call-level > counting are taken into). Or simply try to use another preposition. Yes, see it. Thanks! Fixed. > > > getfenv() behaviour is different from Lua 5.1 in tail calls. > > Minor: You use both "tailcall" and "tail call" within this commit. > Please choose one and use it everywhere. Fixed. > > > > > This patch disables test for the return result of tail call getfenv(). > > Typo: s/tail call getfenv()/getfenv() tail call/. Fixed. > > > Default value (equals 1) of getfenv() function's argument (function > > Typo: s/equals 1/equals to 1/. Fixed. > > > level) is invalid for this tail call -- LuaJIT can't provide necessary > > debug information for the frame. > > Minor: I would explicitly mention, that there is no a separate frame for > tail call. LuaJIT simply uses the existing one created for the caller. Fixed. > > > > > Relates to tarantool/tarantool#5713 > > Part of tarantool/tarantool#5845 > > Part of tarantool/tarantool#4473 > > --- > > test/PUC-Lua-5.1-tests/closure.lua | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > -- > > 2.31.0 > > > > -- > Best regards, > IM -- Best regards, Sergey Kaplun