Fix incorrect comparison in block optimization pass #10329
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
We're in the case of ZEND_JMPZ_EX or ZEND_JMPNZ_EX. The opcode gets overwritten and only after the overwriting gets checked if we're in a JMPZ or JMPNZ case. This results in a wrong optimization.
|
Jesus always so productive :-) |
|
@nielsdos thanks for catching this. |
|
Merged via dfe9c2af1. Thanks |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We're in the case of ZEND_JMPZ_EX or ZEND_JMPNZ_EX. The opcode gets overwritten and only after the overwriting gets checked if we're in a JMPZ or JMPNZ case. This results in a wrong optimization.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find an easy way to write a test because
zend_compile.calready checks for the constant case. Still, it could be that this code can still be reached because of a combination of optimizations.Note that I found this issue using a static analyser which reported this always-false check.