Miscellaneous Meta.partially_inline! fixes
#56813
Open
+16
−0
Conversation
This file contains 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
topolarity
force-pushed
the
ct/fix-partially-inline
branch
from
c0c7415 to
a4cd62b
Compare
I'm not a big fan of this pass, or the way it's written. At a minimum, I'd expect both better test coverage (when we write similar passes for the core Compiler, we get away with weak test coverage by relying on user code) and a re-factor to make this switch exhaustive (it should error if unexpected IR elements are encountered, instead of just performing an incorrect transformation) This doesn't make progress on those issues for now, but it at least fixes up a couple of conspicuous problems I noticed when reviewing JuliaLang#56787
topolarity
force-pushed
the
ct/fix-partially-inline
branch
from
a4cd62b to
7303337
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes up a couple of conspicuous problems I noticed when reviewing #56787
I'm unsure we should have accepted this pass in Base to begin with... It should at least be re-written to error on unexpected IR elements (instead of performing an invalid transform silently), but the real problem is that this pass is out-of-pipeline and so it doesn't run on most user code and we have much worse coverage compared to passes in the main Compiler.
Tests to be added soon.