Defensively copy IRCode from semi-concrete eval for inlining #48963
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
Currently, semi-concrete eval results are one-to-one associated with a particular callsite, so in theory we can destroy them during inlining and nothing bad will happen. However, since we propagate them using the `:info` field, this breaks the assumption that we can copy IRCode around and re-run the compiler on it without ill effect. In general, the `:info` field is assumed generally immutable and mutating the IR containted therein breaks all sorts of assumptions. Perhaps in the future, we can avoid destroying the IRCode that we're about to inline, which would make all this copying unnecessary (note that we're already copying for every case other than semi-concrete eval), but for now just fix the robustness issue here.
Member
|
@nanosoldier |
Collaborator
|
Your benchmark job has completed - no performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here. |
Member
|
LGTM. |
Xnartharax
pushed a commit
to Xnartharax/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2023
…ng#48963) Currently, semi-concrete eval results are one-to-one associated with a particular callsite, so in theory we can destroy them during inlining and nothing bad will happen. However, since we propagate them using the `:info` field, this breaks the assumption that we can copy IRCode around and re-run the compiler on it without ill effect. In general, the `:info` field is assumed generally immutable and mutating the IR containted therein breaks all sorts of assumptions. Perhaps in the future, we can avoid destroying the IRCode that we're about to inline, which would make all this copying unnecessary (note that we're already copying for every case other than semi-concrete eval), but for now just fix the robustness issue here.
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.
Currently, semi-concrete eval results are one-to-one associated with a particular callsite, so in theory we can destroy them during inlining and nothing bad will happen. However, since we propagate them using the
:infofield, this breaks the assumption that we can copy IRCode around and re-run the compiler on it without ill effect. In general, the:infofield is assumed generally immutable and mutating the IR containted therein breaks all sorts of assumptions. Perhaps in the future, we can avoid destroying the IRCode that we're about to inline, which would make all this copying unnecessary (note that we're already copying for every case other than semi-concrete eval), but for now just fix the robustness issue here.