Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

VerifyError: unsorted lookupswitch #6011

Closed
scabug opened this issue Jun 30, 2012 · 15 comments
Closed

VerifyError: unsorted lookupswitch #6011

scabug opened this issue Jun 30, 2012 · 15 comments
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@scabug
Copy link

@scabug scabug commented Jun 30, 2012

The following macro throws a VerifyError when run. Variations on the error are possible. There need to be enough cases to cause a lookupswitch to be generated.

import scala.reflect.makro.Context
import language.experimental.macros

object Macros {
  def m(): Unit = macro m_impl
  def m_impl(c: Context)(): c.Expr[Unit] = {
    import c.universe._
    def f(ch: Char): Any = ch match {
      case 'b' | 'B'                               => 1
      case 'c' | 'C'                               => 2
      case 'd' | 'u' | 'i' | 'o' | 'x' | 'X' | 'c' => 3
      case 'f' | 'e' | 'E' | 'g' | 'G'             => 4
      case 'h' | 'H'                               => 5
      case 's'                                     => 6
      case _                                       => 7
    }
    List('a') foreach f
    c.Expr[Unit](Block(Literal(Constant(()))))
  }
}
object Test extends App { Macros.m() }


uncaught exception during compilation: java.lang.VerifyError
error: java.lang.VerifyError: (class: Macros$, method: Macros$$f$1 signature: (C)Ljava/lang/Object;) Unsorted lookup switch
	at java.lang.Class.forName0(Native Method)
	at java.lang.Class.forName(Class.java:264)
	at scala.tools.nsc.typechecker.Macros$$anonfun$scala$tools$nsc$typechecker$Macros$$macroRuntime$2.loadMacroImpl$1(Macros.scala:702)
	at scala.tools.nsc.typechecker.Macros$$anonfun$scala$tools$nsc$typechecker$Macros$$macroRuntime$2.apply(Macros.scala:745)
	at scala.tools.nsc.typechecker.Macros$$anonfun$scala$tools$nsc$typechecker$Macros$$macroRuntime$2.apply(Macros.scala:653)
	at scala.collection.mutable.MapLike$class.getOrElseUpdate(MapLike.scala:189)
	at scala.collection.mutable.AbstractMap.getOrElseUpdate(Map.scala:91)
	at scala.tools.nsc.typechecker.Macros$class.scala$tools$nsc$typechecker$Macros$$macroRuntime(Macros.scala:653)
@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jun 30, 2012

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jun 30, 2012

@paulp said:
Ha ha ha, classic. Macros have nothing to do with anything, it's just when you're writing your first macro you tend to blame macros for the verify errors.

This is more than sufficient:

object Test {
  def f(ch: Char): Any = ch match {
    case 'b' | 'B'                               => 1
    case 'c' | 'C'                               => 2
    case 'd' | 'u' | 'i' | 'o' | 'x' | 'X' | 'c' => 3
    case 'f' | 'e' | 'E' | 'g' | 'G'             => 4
    case 'h' | 'H'                               => 5
    case 's'                                     => 6
    case _                                       => 7
  }
  
  def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
    f('a')
  }
}
@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jun 30, 2012

@paulp said:
A-ha. Minimized.

object Test {
  def f(ch: Char): Any = ch match {
    case 'a' | 'b' => 1
    case 'z' | 'a' => 1
  }
  def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = f('a')
}
@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jun 30, 2012

@magarciaEPFL said:
The offending bytecode instruction is:

   3:	lookupswitch{ //4
		97: 63;
		97: 56;
		98: 63;
		122: 56;
		default: 44 }

The list of int pair (match, offset) as per the JVMS "must be sorted in increasing numerical order by match."

The problem above is the duplicate match value (97) which results from 'a' matching two different case clauses (the second is unreachable for that value).

The backend can silently swallow duplicate match values but given they're constants, the error could be signalled earlier.

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 1, 2012

@paulp said:
The error must be signalled earlier, it's definitively unreachable code. But the backend should - not silently, emitting a warning - eliminate duplicates in the name of robustness.

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 7, 2012

@magarciaEPFL said:
What GenASM can do (all it can do) about this is showcased in the third commit of scala/scala#841 , ie in 4cca17da5c5236c23e32c0a3298e4a097e335a0c

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@dragos said:
I don't know if I should file a separate ticket, but the same happens with the following correct code:

object Test {
  var cond = false
  
  def f(ch: Char): Any = ch match {
    case 'a' if cond => 1
    case 'z' | 'a' => 2
  }
  def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = f('a')
}
@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@adriaanm said:
I'm looking into fixing this, but it's a bit involved...

Technically, it depends on the granularity of the reachable entities you're considering.
The current implementation considers reachability per case, and f('z') will reach the case we think of as unreachable.

I'm trying to figure out how to consider reachability per alternative, but that's tricky to describe in general. What if you have several nested alternatives (inside other patterns) in one case?

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@dragos said:
Adriaan, do you want me to open a separate ticket? In my example there is no unreachable code, so let me know if you want to keep this ticket for unreachability analysis and have another one for incorrect code.

For the record, you could fall back to if-then-elses if there are duplicate entries with different guards (like the old one did).

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@paulp said:
I also just opened an unreachability ticket this morning. #6048

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@adriaanm said:
I've looking at all of these unreachability tickets today and will continue tomorrow.
No need for a separate ticket, Iulian, I'll take care of it.

Yes, we shouldn't emit switches like this, and fall back.
I wasn't dealing with alternatives properly in the code that collapses guarded cases in switches.

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@paulp said:

I'm trying to figure out how to consider reachability per alternative, but that's tricky to describe in general. What if you have several nested alternatives (inside other patterns) in one case?

What deters you from expanding all the alternatives up front? This was something the old matcher did which I thought was approximately correct: copy patterns around until alternatives are gone.

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 9, 2012

@adriaanm said:
it's an option I'm considering, at least for the sake of analyzing a match
I currently didn't need to do that, since I could just Or the corresponding propositions together

@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jul 16, 2012

@scabug scabug closed this Jul 16, 2012
@scabug

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@scabug scabug commented Jan 19, 2013

@retronym said:
A variation of this bug persisted, but has been fixed along with #6902

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.