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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
gh-98831: Use opcode metadata for stack_effect() #101704
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
gh-98831: Use opcode metadata for stack_effect() #101704
Changes from all commits
f59751d
383c1fc
c5db6bc
683d8f7
a271ebc
977e639
bd19d79
658ea17
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't it be correct to return the stack effect of
_PyOpcode_Deopt[opcode]
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I thought so, but there are unit tests that insist that this is an error, and I didn't feel like changing the tests:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, those tests probably predate specialization. We don't need to change this now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
opcode.py goes to great lengths to hide the existence of specialized instructions -- they don't show in either
opname
oropmap
, even though pseudo ops do exist there. So I think it's by design. Though we could argue for changing that design.I found the algorithm in dis.py on L46-52. I think it's duplicated in Tools/build/generate_opcode_h.py on L145-151.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think dis.py:46-52 is actually allocating unused opcodes for the specialised instructions, while generate_opcode_h.py:145-151 is building the full deopt lookup table from opcode["_specializations"], plus mapping each normal opcode to itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh wait, in generate_opcode_h.py it's L101-107. These two algorithms ought to match, otherwise results will be hilarious. :-)
Anyway, I'm going to merge now. On to figuring out whether mark_stacks() is in reach yet (I doubt it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah yes. Wow, we need to fix that.