bug#50268: 28.0.50; Assertion warning during native compilation

[Andrea Corallo via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>]

Michael Welsh Duggan <mwd@md5i.com> writes:

> I was able to determine that there was a bug in the pacproxy.el code
> that I included in the bug report.  Fixing that bug caused native
> compilation to work.  The assertion and backtrace were not particularly
> useful in determining the bug in the code, though.  The bug was in the
> `pacproxy--retrieve-wpad' function when I let-bound the following
> illegal lambda:
>
>   (lambda (&rest) "DIRECT")
>
> The fix was to change this to:
>
>   (lambda (&rest _) "DIRECT")
>
> Is there another part of the compiler that could have caught this and
> returned a useful diagnostic?

Hi Michael & all,

I had a quick look and these are my findings:

(byte-compile '(lambda (&rest _) "DIRECT"))
=>
#[128 "\300\207" ["DIRECT"] 2 "DIRECT

(fn &rest _)"]

Here we have as encoded signature 128 (one rest arg) and the frame size
is 2 (one for the rest arg and one for the immediate). Fine...

(byte-compile '(lambda () "DIRECT"))
=>
#[0 "\300\207" ["DIRECT"] 1 "DIRECT"] 

Here we have as encoded signature 0 (no args) and the frame size is 1
(will be used by the immediate).  Fine as well.

(byte-compile '(lambda (&rest) "DIRECT"))
=>
#[128 "\300\207" ["DIRECT"] 1 "DIRECT

(fn &rest)"]

This is the problematic case that was signaled as reproducer.  Here we
have as encoded signature 128 (one rest arg) but the frame size (1) is
not accounting for this.

I think this output is a incoherent and I guess the byte compiler should
probably just raise an error and refuse to compile if the lambda list is
invalid.  Am I wrong?

Regards

  Andrea