Fix a bug in how OP_SETLIST is handled. Includes new test case.

src/main/java/lua/CallFrame.java

@@ -367,15 +367,16 @@ public class CallFrame {
 			case StackState.OP_SETLIST: {
 				b = StackState.GETARG_B(i);
 				c = StackState.GETARG_C(i);
+				int listBase = base + a;
 				if (b == 0) {
-					b = top - 1;
+					b = top - listBase - 1;
 				}
 				if (c == 0) {
 					c = code[pc++];
 				}
 				table = this.stack[base + a];
 				for (int index = 1; index <= b; index++) {
-					val = this.stack[base + a + index];
+					val = this.stack[listBase + index];
 					table.luaSetTable(this, this.state.avail, table,
 							new LInteger(index), val);
 				}

src/test/java/lua/LuaJTest.java

@@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ public class LuaJTest extends TestCase {
 		runTest( "upvalues2" );
 	}
 	
+	public void testSetlist() throws IOException, InterruptedException {
+		runTest( "setlist" );
+	}
+	
 	private void runTest( String testName ) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
 		// add LuaJava bindings
 		LuaJava.install();

src/test/res/setlist.lua

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+-- This file attemps to test that the setlist instruction works
+
+local list = { 1, 2, 3 }
+
+-- for now, can't just do:
+--   for x, y in pairs( list ) do
+-- since our tables don't iterate over keys in the same order
+-- as regular Lua.
+
+print( #list )
+for i = 1, 3 do
+	print("list[", i, "]=", list[i])
+end
+
+local function printList( l )
+	for i = 1, #l do
+		print(i, "->", l[i] )
+	end
+end
+
+printList( { "a", "b", "c" } )
+
+local function foo()
+	return "d", "e", "f", "g"
+end
+
+printList( { foo() } )