From: Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> To: Maxim Kokryashkin <m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org>, Sergey Kaplun <skaplun@tarantool.org> Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Sergey Bronnikov <estetus@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v1] Fix BC_UCLO insertion for returns. Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 12:43:22 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <cecef809-3b23-05aa-5f20-110e4cc89843@tarantool.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1686137725.949044142@f485.i.mail.ru> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3091 bytes --] Hi, Max! Thanks for review! Added more comments to the test and commit message. New changes force-pushed to the branch. Please take a look. S. On 6/7/23 14:35, Maxim Kokryashkin wrote: > Hi, Sergey and Sergey! > > Hi, Sergey! > Thanks for the patch! > Please, consider my comments below. > > On 30.05.23, Sergey Bronnikov wrote: > > From: Sergey Bronnikov <sergeyb@tarantool.org > </compose?To=sergeyb@tarantool.org>> > > > > Contributed by XmiliaH. > > > > (cherry-picked from commit > 93a65d3cc263aef2d2feb3d7ff2206aca3bee17e) > > > > After emitting bytecode instruction BC_FNEW fixup is not > required, > > Typo: s/bytecode/the bytecode > Fixed, thanks! > > because FuncState will set a flag PROTO_CHILD that will > trigger emitting > > a pair of instructions BC_UCLO and BC_RET (see > <src/lj_parse.c:2355>) > > and BC_RET will close all upvalues from base equal to 0. > > This part describes why replacing UCLO with FNEW is good > enough and > better than just deleting > | case BC_UCLO: return; > But the original problem is that some of BC_RET are not > fixup-ed, due to > early return, if UCLO is obtained before, those leads to VM > inconsistency after return from the function. Please, mention > this too. > > Agree here, it is hard to get what the patch is about from that > description, > without diving into the changes. > Added more details. <snipped> > > Also, before the patch I got the following assertion in JIT: > > | LUA_PATH="src/?.lua;;" src/luajit -Ohotloop=1 -e ' > | > | local function missing_uclo() > | while true do -- luacheck: ignore > | local f > | if false then break end > | while true do > | if f then > | return f > | end > | f = function() > | return f > | end > | end > | end > | end > | f = missing_uclo() > | print(f()) > | f = missing_uclo() > | print(f()) > | ' > | 3.1002202036551 > | luajit: > /home/burii/reviews/luajit/lj-819-missing-uclo/src/lj_record.c:135: > rec_check_slots: Assertion `((((((tr))>>24) & IRT_TYPE) - > (TRef)(IRT_NUM) <= (TRef) > | (IRT_INT-IRT_NUM)))' failed. > | Aborted > > I don't sure that we should test this particular failure too, > since the > origin of the problem is the incorrect emitted bytecode. > > Thoughts? > > We should not, because it is most likely caused by the issue > that was fixed in the LuaJIT/LuaJIT@5c46f477. > assert in rec_check_slots could be for many reasons, so I added a testcase for compiler too. > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > -- > Best regards, > Sergey Kaplun > > -- > Best regards, > Maxim Kokryashkin > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7304 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-06 9:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-05-30 16:56 Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches 2023-06-06 12:51 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-06-07 11:35 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-06 9:43 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches [this message] 2023-07-06 11:31 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-06 13:45 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-06 21:12 ` Maxim Kokryashkin via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-06 9:40 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-09 13:15 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-10 14:53 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-13 7:57 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-13 9:55 ` Sergey Bronnikov via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-13 10:25 ` Sergey Kaplun via Tarantool-patches 2023-07-20 18:37 ` Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=cecef809-3b23-05aa-5f20-110e4cc89843@tarantool.org \ --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=estetus@gmail.com \ --cc=m.kokryashkin@tarantool.org \ --cc=sergeyb@tarantool.org \ --cc=skaplun@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit v1] Fix BC_UCLO insertion for returns.' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox