ufuzz failure #3911
Labels
Comments
|
@kzc easier to discuss it here with the test case right above us 😉 I used the same Node.js v10.20.1 just in case but no luck for me either. Could it be the beautification of the original test case which is the issue here? 🤔 It checks if the original runtime result stay the same, but may be it should check if it reproduces the uglify bug instead? |
|
Yup, I think I've got it: var _calls_ = 10, a = 100, b = 10, c = 0;
function f0() {
var Math_2;
return function() {
if (a--) a++ + (b += a);
var foo_1 = a++ + typeof (typeof f0 == "function" && --_calls_ >= 0 && f0(!b, --b, (c = c + 1) + {
a: (c = 1 + c, (-0 & 38..toString() || 22 !== "") & (undefined || undefined || (-3,
2))),
c: (c = 1 + c, (("foo" != "function") < (c = c + 1, -2)) >> (-1 <= -4 != "number" - "function")),
1.5: (c = 1 + c, foo_1 && (foo_1[a++ + typeof (a++ + (b /= a))] &= (foo_1 && (foo_1.undefined += 2 - "function" - 2 % "")) > (c = c + 1,
"number" || 3))),
0: (c = 1 + c, ((true || "a") & NaN !== "function") !== ("", 0) > 25 - 25),
foo: (c = 1 + c, (0 / -2 >>> (false && -4)) + (-5 == "undefined" == (3 & 23..toString())))
}));
};
}
var a = f0();
console.log(null, a, b, c, Infinity, NaN, undefined);This would reproduce the bug in the test case. |
|
Nice job. How were you able to repro that? Trial and error? --- 0.js 2020-05-20 14:29:38.000000000 -0400
+++ 1.js 2020-05-20 14:29:53.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,13 +1,9 @@
-// original code
-// (beautified)
var _calls_ = 10, a = 100, b = 10, c = 0;
function f0() {
var Math_2;
return function() {
- if (a--) {
- a++ + (b += a);
- }
+ if (a--) a++ + (b += a);
var foo_1 = a++ + typeof (typeof f0 == "function" && --_calls_ >= 0 && f0(!b, --b, (c = c + 1) + {
a: (c = 1 + c, (-0 & 38..toString() || 22 !== "") & (undefined || undefined || (-3,
2))), |
|
I would refer to that as an educated guess... 😎 |
Merged
alexlamsl
added a commit
to alexlamsl/UglifyJS
that referenced
this issue
May 21, 2020
alexlamsl
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 21, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: