[3.12] gh-109889: comment out assertion indicating a failed optimization of a redundant NOP#109899
Merged
Yhg1s merged 2 commits intopython:3.12from Sep 26, 2023
Merged
[3.12] gh-109889: comment out assertion indicating a failed optimization of a redundant NOP#109899Yhg1s merged 2 commits intopython:3.12from
Yhg1s merged 2 commits intopython:3.12from
Conversation
…imization of a redundant NOP
Member
|
Looks like this leads to a bunch of compiler warnings being emitted on line 370: |
markshannon
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2023
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
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
There is an optimization in the compiler where it removes redundant NOPs, and this assertion checks that it doesn't miss any.
Through fuzzing, it was found that in the case where there is a basic block with just a single instruction which is a redundant NOP, the NOP is not being removed (see #109889).
This close to the 3.12.0 release, I am proposing to comment out the assertion. There is no correctness issue here (just an extra NOP in some unlikely code).
I will work on a proper fix for the optimization for 3.13 and 3.12.1.