From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jit-return-737-listarch-jit=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 108056 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 19:11:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:jit@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jit-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:jit-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 107986 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2015 19:11:29 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Message-ID: <1436382217.24803.101.camel@surprise>
Subject: Re: Filed PR jit/66812 for the code generation issue
From: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
To: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CACXZuxdi+M+Ttgszi9hqDvT1V-NrQKxD3dTM6TOO2m3dzaz34g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CACXZuxc3z92zKFWhNBU4a0LDxhyNRiZcbMf83HVYkOn-7CScDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CACXZuxfKRkEzSjzPCvpSvL0EcryEofyL-xjgJLxByNQDNpBjTg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CACXZuxez_fzRYnmZ-traUo2uOr5fU4kC3VrEbWYC8UWDnvEa_A@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CACXZuxfb+OOW6Mc4GPBfUaE4VSAhOmy=f1KCXxLmXq=Mw7DdyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1436365266.24803.65.camel@surprise> <1436367926.24803.71.camel@surprise>
	 <1436369443.24803.75.camel@surprise> <1436377619.24803.97.camel@surprise>
	 <CACXZuxdi+M+Ttgszi9hqDvT1V-NrQKxD3dTM6TOO2m3dzaz34g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23
X-SW-Source: 2015-q3/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 20:01 +0100, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> On 8 July 2015 at 18:46, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Dibyendu: what Lua code generated the reproducer?  What is the code
> > meant to be doing?
> >
> 
> Hi Dave - the Lua test is this:
> 
> function x()
>   local IX
>   if ((10 or true) and false) then
>     IX = true
>   end;
>   return ((10 or true) and false)
> end
> assert(x() == false)
> 
> In the original test IX is an upvalue - i.e. a variable in outer
> scope. This is my standalone version of the test. The original test is
> generated as part of the Lua test suite - its purpose is to test
> various permutations of boolean operators.
> 
> The original test compares IX and the function return.
> 
> The issue is that this test should return false - if you see the
> return statement. However when -O2 or -O3 is enabled it returns true.
> 
> The if statement is indeed redundant in this cut down version as IX is
> a local variable. But the return statement is not redundant.

Thanks.  What does this look like as bytecodes?