On Fri Apr 04 22:28:31 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thursday 03 April 2008 11:22:16 Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> > First, deep inside IMCC_subst_constants() in compilers/imcc/optimizer.c,
> > when the divide by zero fails, it returns a NULL value, but forgets to
> > also set the undocumented "return" value for 'ok'. The appended patch
> > sets it to 0, figuring all is not ok if we encountered an exception.
> >
> > This is a problem because in compilers/imcc/parser_util.c, inside INS(),
> > the ok variable is never initialized. Apparently, on x86, it ends up
> > filled with some non-zero value, but on SPARC it ends up as a zero.
> > The appended patch initializes the variable.
> >
> > What to do with the return values, however, is a different question.
> > After this patch is applied, the information that an exception occured
> > has now correctly propagated up to the INS() function, but it's not
> > at all clear to me what to do with it from here.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > diff -r -u parrot-svn/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c
> > parrot-andy/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c ---
> > parrot-svn/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c 2008-03-31 15:14:39.000000000
-0400
> > +++ parrot-andy/compilers/imcc/optimizer.c 2008-04-03 13:14:52.000000000
> > -0400 @@ -976,8 +976,10 @@
> > * from the result
> > */
> > branched = eval_ins(interp, op, found, r);
> > - if (branched == -1)
> > + if (branched == -1) {
> > + *ok = 0; /* XXX Is this return value sensible? */
> > return NULL;
> > + }
>
> Sadly, this part doesn't work because of the other call to this
function.
> I've applied the rest of the patch with some tweaks as r26763.
>
> -- c
>
Andy, does this test pass for you now?
