armedbear-devel May 2019

armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net

4 participants
3 discussions

Patch for a couple of stack inconsistency bugs
by somewhat-functional-programmer 18 Nov '19

18 Nov '19

Hello list, Lately I have been starting to dive deeper into Common Lisp and have started to use ABCL more than SBCL or CCL lately. It is a very impressive project. I want to post a patch for review/comments and hopefully have it be worthwhile to eventually include it in ABCL. The patch attempts to fix a couple of stack inconsistency bugs in the compiler. I came across the stack inconsistency issue in one of my projects and started to try to find the root cause of the problem based on a nice minimal reproduction of the bug found in https://github.com/armedbear/abcl/issues/69. However, my particular bug was slightly different. It had to do with using a return-from in the cleanup form of an unwind-protect. The following two forms also result in a stack inconsistency problem (and are a more minimal reproduction of the bug my code introduced): (defun two-arg-fn (one two) (format t "Two args: ~S and ~S~%" one two)) (let ((fn (compile nil '(lambda () (two-arg-fn (block test-block (unwind-protect 30 (return-from test-block 8))) -1))))) (funcall fn)) My patch handles both the github issue and the stack inconsistency in the form above. It also fixes jvm::print-code to print string representations of values from the constant pool which I found useful in debugging the output. Anyhow, let me attempt to quickly summarize the stack inconsistency problem in general: - Certain common lisp control flow forms (tagbody/go/unwind-protect/block/return-from/throw/catch) require the use of JVM exceptions to implement in bytecode - When the JVM throws an exception, the operand stack is cleared and the exception is pushed onto the operand stack (see jvms8, 6.5/athrow, p378) - Therefore, any form which pushes values onto the operand stack for further use is confounded when these control flow forms are child forms - To properly handle these alternate control flows we need to save the result of the control flow form to a local variable in the stack frame (distinct from the operand stack, and not destroyed by an exception (well at least not until the exception passes /out/ of the method) and then reload for use by the parent form to push on the operand stack Take the case of the ash function (from the github issue). Bytecode for ash is emitted from jvm::p2-ash. It compiles its arguments to the operand stack, and is therefore vulnerable to the problem discussed above. Other low level functions (like + for example in p2-plus) use the following forms to overcome this issue: jvm::with-operand-accumulation and jvm::compile-operand. These forms save the results of "unsafe" forms (opstack unsafe) to "registers" (local variables in the stack frame). This technique allows for these complicated control flow forms to be a child form of + with no issues, but not the ash function (which does not do this). See my patch for how I added these already present with-operand-accumulation and compile-operand forms to ash so it is no longer vulnerable to stack inconsistency bugs. Generally, function calls in ABCL are not vulnerable to these stack inconsistency bugs. Function arguments are processed in jvm::process-args, and in this function, the opstack safety of child forms is checked, and values are saved to "registers" when a form is known to be unsafe. My case (the return-from in the cleanup form of an unwind-protect) simply wasn't properly being marked as opstack unsafe. I modified jvm::p1-unwind-protect to mark all direct children of the unwind-protect as opstack unsafe, which eliminated my problem. I believe there may have been confusion here in the code (speculation of course on my part) of 'protected' form referring to the form actually protected by the unwind-protect (which is totally different than being unsafe or needing opstack /protection/) (or I'm misinterpreting this function and potentially causing additional bugs!). The only other item in my patch is fixing how bytecode is printed for debugging. Basically, most items in a class constant pool are referenced with a 2 byte index, but one (ldc) uses a one byte index). This has been accounted for in the new function jvm::constant-pool-index. Let me know what you think, and again please review, there aren't many lines changed but I am new to the internals of the project. I think I ran all tests (ant abcl.test) but while the ant task completed successfully, my output complained of a missing dependency and I'm not sure what actually ran. -Mark The attached patch was produced against b3cfee6617e0c2c380d8675f3383d81e7758f358 from https://github.com/easye/abcl (latest master branch). [jvms8] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se8/jvms8.pdf

2 3

format ~$ may need consider -0.0
by dingd 16 Nov '19

16 Nov '19

this is what sbcl does * (format nil "~$" -0.0) "-0.00"

2 1

Running Lisp tests
by Alessio Stalla 12 Jun '19

12 Jun '19

Greetings, I have trouble running ABCL's Lisp test suites: $ ant abcl.test ...lots of output... [java] Caught :ASDF/FIND-COMPONENT:MISSING-DEPENDENCY while processing --eval option "(asdf:test-system :abcl/test/ansi/compiled)": [java] #<MISSING-DEPENDENCY {1337E679}> [java] Java Result: 2 ...etc... Do you have any idea? Thanks Alessio

5 10

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

armedbear-devel May 2019