From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jit-return-736-listarch-jit=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 83004 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 19:01:27 -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 82972 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jul 2015 19:01:23 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.98.7 on sourceware.org
X-Virus-Found: No
X-HELO: mail-yk0-f178.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=yHbGCJUT/J3asAfmgvxAE72WZsEB4y20qtzZO7cybTo=;
        b=hWgGUq88GoH109F4UunadTevscU8dUM/QfVfig4EMUHDw+yEhB+bae6WHG9XlbEtHV
         yH0ZXxlxpw4lrIvdmCfTtmwLMF3oPST1cmkfasKZJmPR77H0uBM887iJ9JxYHfo67Qg2
         gOrD+kAn0lyQVgAkbX0Xuf/hbXW5I0RUO+F9ZXxYkbVKQKjSY06fAjYeKcFazzql4TPI
         4kHK+CN1ny66h++GV9n3hOUDW2uFv4ZvpR45F6dREZq30s0iRPOT/jhIptaMV6h+GylI
         oZAtXvCfNasZdfxe48kI+uH7R8WJMNUM2dSjC5mKl0JXfw1BEuqjqQ51imbclkAV9iB9
         CHbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpN225JNaJAb0n/ADbXPKdqZt0FZ12VFVgFojPn3czfg1v+g0d045Di+0cA7+o659UBTP3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.13.212.199 with SMTP id w190mr13088543ywd.57.1436382081932;
 Wed, 08 Jul 2015 12:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1436377619.24803.97.camel@surprise>
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>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CACXZuxdi+M+Ttgszi9hqDvT1V-NrQKxD3dTM6TOO2m3dzaz34g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Filed PR jit/66812 for the code generation issue
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-q3/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2

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.

Regards
Dibyendu