From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 104644 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2017 06:29:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kawa-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: kawa-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 104634 invoked by uid 89); 5 Oct 2017 06:29:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Until, punt, kawa X-HELO: aibo.runbox.com Received: from aibo.runbox.com (HELO aibo.runbox.com) (91.220.196.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:29:01 +0000 Received: from [10.9.9.211] (helo=mailfront11.runbox.com) by mailtransmit02.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dzzeV-0002v9-4k; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 08:28:59 +0200 Received: from 70-36-239-2.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com ([70.36.239.2] helo=localhost.localdomain) by mailfront11.runbox.com with esmtpsa (uid:757155 ) (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) id 1dzze9-0000UT-Gj; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 08:28:37 +0200 Subject: Re: The "--no-inline" option caused Kawa to generate invalid bytecode To: Kay Zheng , Kawa mailing list References: From: Per Bothner Message-ID: <5e4c6efe-e2ad-8984-7ef9-790c79fdfa4b@bothner.com> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-q4/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On 09/04/2017 03:25 AM, Kay Zheng wrote: > Hi Per, > > I think I hit a bug regarding "(define-early-constant ...)" and the > "--no-inline" option. This is the problematic program: ... [caused a VerifyError]. The problem was that one point Kawa thought the current bytecode location was "unreachable" - as it would be after a goto instruction. That is why it didn't generate the necessary instructions. Fixing that problem was relatively easy, but then I ran into another problem in generating the stack-map tables (which are used by the verifier) Fixing that problem looked messy and difficult. I tried the test-case using the bytecode2 branch (announced in the previous message) - and that worked. So I decided to "punt" on this problem for now, and wait for it to be fixed when bytecode2 is merged into master. Sorry about that. Until the code is merged, I welcome testing of the bytecode2 branch. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/