[compiler] Fix for PropertyStore object effect #33164
Open
+16
−35
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
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 9, 2025
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
ghstack-source-id: c96a66f
Pull Request resolved: #33164
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
ghstack-source-id: f516384
Pull Request resolved: #33164
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
ghstack-source-id: f516384
Pull Request resolved: #33164
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
josephsavona
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 9, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
ghstack-source-id: 2a140f2
Pull Request resolved: #33164
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 13, 2025
rkpatel009
pushed a commit
to rkpatel009/react
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
ghstack-source-id: 2a140f2
Pull Request resolved: facebook/react#33164
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 27, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 30, 2025
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
```
const x = {y: {z: {}}};
x.y.z.key = value;
```
That the `PropertyStore z . 'key' = value` is a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).
But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.
[ghstack-poisoned]
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Fix for the issue in the previous PR. Long-term the ideal thing would be to make InferMutableRanges smarter about Store effects, and recognize that they are also transitive mutations of whatever was captured into the object. So in the following:
That the
PropertyStore z . 'key' = valueis a transitive mutation of x and all three object expressions (x, x.y, x.y.z).But for now it's simpler to stick to the original idea of Store only counting if we know that the type is an object.