Merged
Conversation
|
Libtask.jl documentation for PR #216 is available at: |
Member
|
Nice improvement -- interesting to know that coding agents can help with understanding tricky code! |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #204, and adds a regression test.
The problem is that the SSA registers inside
Expr(:throw_undef_if_not, ...)were not being referenced/dereferenced in the same way that other SSA registers are. The fix itself is a one-liner, it just applies the existing SSA register handling mechanism tothrow_undef_if_not.In the original reproducer in #204, this is the original function's IR.
The first
throw_undef_if_notis fortuitously handled because it references%4, which is derived from a PhiNode, and the PhiNode handling ensures that the value of%4is indeed dereferenced correctly.The second
throw_undef_if_notwould be fine if it ended up in the same CFG block as the previous one. However, because there's a produce statement between the two, it ends up in a different block, which leads to the error seen in #204.(Claude helped me work through the codebase, but the PR and fix is mine.)