From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jit-return-678-listarch-jit=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 88144 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2015 21:37:14 -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 88133 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jun 2015 21:37:13 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f175.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=dEmRiZ49Kq5BK0gq9fHvSzVpfOf+5SX5HY7Q7zMm3BA=;
        b=Wufo0KaGlorZR/V2YEDgr79TLqEtpjeET3Ai7I9LueePX7kIVsoiTScfHn/Eioxe5X
         GspbELUOUlWiRoYyaVNULJLI3uwi024AoFd+AUwA4PfylVKKvpbeMi9YOPJDfsX6NVTh
         ISrOiVHw6x7xFKmOYWNNB6M/oouVhaUXbTKO8gb81+5n4oLVGpITzZKUknZpTMz/f1Vr
         /ylWhQo6kuPoNoEbqi0+XXTa+BgL1mFHZOjVCGiPFFYfuFsrt1hBVasyRjNdaEzgGylJ
         DFiElA/o8WXKMST9eNZ/WZPerhGkqrt4WK7VtKlVcVZ2Z5B30cqpGwMO7+HJyWGh1AS4
         LqyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlHcxZXi8KaMQR6nSRPtTL+YT6wx4VB9j3d80/5fM8QSQL1iDJMseB4PmKyqKJ4pNNOSQ9E
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.170.91.133 with SMTP id i127mr21241503yka.83.1435613830552;
 Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:37:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACXZuxeqNTjyyikrTuAWvJdQ1PtYc8rdXDYdD2Ywsh=TxJgaVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACXZuxcrz32gfH=PEoiJ_w7ijpFX5Y_x5+-_NETVgGHKnxioCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1435612102.13727.173.camel@surprise>
	<CACXZuxeqNTjyyikrTuAWvJdQ1PtYc8rdXDYdD2Ywsh=TxJgaVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CACXZuxcV94XUPS9=N6KNLj-DbAjCKeJQYi+jQ2v6jfEgQmxMfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Weird problem
From: Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>
Cc: jit@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2015-q2/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2

On 29 June 2015 at 22:25, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
> On 29 June 2015 at 22:08, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Does it help if you introduce an intermediate to hold the result of the
>> call to luaV_tonumber_ before comparing it against zero?  It
>> *shouldn't*, but maybe we have a libgccjit bug.
>>

Tried this - did not help. The print I put in shows that the address
that luaV_number() is getting is not the same.

number 0x7ffce864f5e0 = 0.000000 before call to luaV_number
set *0x7ffce864f5e8 to 6.200000
number ok = 0.000000

And yet it is the address of the same variable being passed.

I cannot see what I am doing wrong - perhaps you can spot in the
reproducer dump.

Thanks and Regards
Dibyendu