The generated lists are more correct than the (old) hard-coded ones, which were not maintained properly.

For example:

Old:

>>> [opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal]['LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST', 'DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL', 'LOAD_CLOSURE']

New:

>>> [opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal]['LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST', 'DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'MAKE_CELL', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'STORE_DEREF', 'DELETE_DEREF', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'LOAD_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_STORE_FAST', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL', 'LOAD_CLOSURE']

Maybe in this case actually the new list is incorrect - all the opcodes with DEREF seem to belong to hasfree rather than haslocal:

[opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasfree]['MAKE_CELL', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'STORE_DEREF', 'DELETE_DEREF', '<148>', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF']

The generated lists are more correct than the (old) hard-coded ones, which were not maintained properly.
For example:
Old:

>>> [opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal]['LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST', 'DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL', 'LOAD_CLOSURE']

New:

>>> [opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal]['LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST', 'DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'MAKE_CELL', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'STORE_DEREF', 'DELETE_DEREF', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'LOAD_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_STORE_FAST', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL', 'LOAD_CLOSURE']

Maybe in this case actually the new list is incorrect - all the opcodes with DEREF seem to belong to hasfree rather than haslocal:

[opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasfree]['MAKE_CELL', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'STORE_DEREF', 'DELETE_DEREF', '<148>', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF']

Ugh. Worse, now LOAD_CLOSURE is gone, it’s ambiguous. Who uses this? How? (Only dis.py?)

Ugh. Worse, now LOAD_CLOSURE is gone, it’s ambiguous. Who uses this? How? (Only dis.py?)

LOAD_CLOSURE is just an alias (pseudo op) for LOAD_FAST. It's in the haslocal list in the old and new version, no change there.

Now it's like this:

Old:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasfree])['<148>', 'DELETE_DEREF', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF', 'MAKE_CELL', 'STORE_DEREF']>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal])['DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_CLOSURE', 'LOAD_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'STORE_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL']

New:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasfree])['DELETE_DEREF', 'LOAD_DEREF', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_DEREF', 'MAKE_CELL', 'STORE_DEREF']>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.haslocal])['DELETE_FAST', 'LOAD_CLOSURE', 'LOAD_FAST', 'LOAD_FAST_AND_CLEAR', 'LOAD_FAST_CHECK', 'LOAD_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_LOAD_FAST', 'STORE_FAST_MAYBE_NULL', 'STORE_FAST_STORE_FAST']

The "<148>" is because in opcode.py in main we havehasfree.append(148) even though there is no such opcode.

In the haslocal list, we see that the old list is missing the super instructions.

For the other lists:

Old:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasconst])['KW_NAMES', 'LOAD_CONST', 'RETURN_CONST']

New:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasconst])['INSTRUMENTED_RETURN_CONST', 'KW_NAMES', 'LOAD_CONST', 'RETURN_CONST']

old is missing theINSTRUMENTED_*.

Old:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasname])['DELETE_ATTR', 'DELETE_GLOBAL', 'DELETE_NAME', 'IMPORT_FROM', 'IMPORT_NAME', 'LOAD_ATTR', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_GLOBALS', 'LOAD_GLOBAL', 'LOAD_METHOD', 'LOAD_NAME', 'LOAD_SUPER_ATTR', 'LOAD_SUPER_METHOD', 'LOAD_ZERO_SUPER_ATTR', 'LOAD_ZERO_SUPER_METHOD', 'STORE_ATTR', 'STORE_GLOBAL', 'STORE_NAME']

New:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasname])['DELETE_ATTR', 'DELETE_GLOBAL', 'DELETE_NAME', 'IMPORT_FROM', 'IMPORT_NAME', 'LOAD_ATTR', 'LOAD_FROM_DICT_OR_GLOBALS', 'LOAD_GLOBAL', 'LOAD_METHOD', 'LOAD_NAME', 'LOAD_SUPER_ATTR', 'LOAD_SUPER_METHOD', 'LOAD_ZERO_SUPER_ATTR', 'LOAD_ZERO_SUPER_METHOD', 'STORE_ATTR', 'STORE_GLOBAL', 'STORE_NAME']

Old is missingLOAD_ZERO_SUPER_ATTR andLOAD_ZERO_SUPER_METHOD.

Old:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasjrel])['FOR_ITER', 'JUMP', 'JUMP_BACKWARD', 'JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT', 'JUMP_FORWARD', 'JUMP_NO_INTERRUPT', 'POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_NONE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_NOT_NONE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE', 'SEND']

New:

>>> sorted([opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hasjrel])['ENTER_EXECUTOR', 'FOR_ITER', 'JUMP', 'JUMP_BACKWARD', 'JUMP_BACKWARD_NO_INTERRUPT', 'JUMP_FORWARD', 'JUMP_NO_INTERRUPT', 'POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_NONE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_NOT_NONE', 'POP_JUMP_IF_TRUE', 'SEND']

New hasENTER_EXECUTOR as a jump.

For hasarg, the old list contained a few that the new list does not:

{'INSTRUMENTED_CALL_FUNCTION_EX', 'INSTRUMENTED_RETURN_VALUE', 'INSTRUMENTED_LINE', 'INSTRUMENTED_END_SEND', 'INSTRUMENTED_INSTRUCTION', 'INSTRUMENTED_END_FOR'}

It mostly looks right, except forINSTRUMENTED_CALL_FUNCTION_EX, which delegates the work toCALL_FUNCTION_EX which does have an arg.

Ugh. Worse, now LOAD_CLOSURE is gone, it’s ambiguous. Who uses this? How? (Only dis.py?)

LOAD_CLOSURE is just an alias (pseudo op) for LOAD_FAST. It's in the haslocal list in the old and new version, no change there.

My point is that LOAD_CLOSURE used to be separate because it was in the hasfree list. Now some LOAD_FAST instances refer to a local and others to a free variable. Example:

>>> def foo(a):...   print(a)...   def bar(): return a... >>> dis.dis(foo)              0 MAKE_CELL                0 (a)  1           2 RESUME                   0  2           4 LOAD_GLOBAL              1 (NULL + print)             14 LOAD_DEREF               0 (a)             16 CALL                     1             24 POP_TOP  3          26 LOAD_FAST                0 (a)             28 BUILD_TUPLE              1             30 LOAD_CONST               1 (<code object bar at 0x101d18400, file "<stdin>", line 3>)             32 MAKE_FUNCTION             34 SET_FUNCTION_ATTRIBUTE   8 (closure)             36 STORE_FAST               1 (bar)             38 RETURN_CONST             0 (None)Disassembly of <code object bar at 0x101d18400, file "<stdin>", line 3>:              0 COPY_FREE_VARS           1  3           2 RESUME                   0              4 LOAD_DEREF               0 (a)              6 RETURN_VALUE>>>

The LOAD_FAST (a) at offset 26 used to be a LOAD_CLOSURE in 3.12 and before (and in 3.13 until LOAD_CLOSURE was made a pseudo-op). It's harmless, because we haveco_varnames indexed by both locals and cells. So maybehasfree is no longer useful?

I don't think

The "<148>" is because in opcode.py in main we havehasfree.append(148) even though there is no such opcode.

Looks like a relic. In 3.11, 148 was LOAD_CLASSDEREF. That opcode no longer exists in 3.12 (it was removed ingh-103764 for PEP 695). So let's get rid of it.

The LOAD_FAST (a) at offset 26 used to be a LOAD_CLOSURE in 3.12 and before (and in 3.13 until LOAD_CLOSURE was made a pseudo-op). It's harmless, because we haveco_varnames indexed by both locals and cells. So maybehasfree is no longer useful?

So we merge hasfree into haslocal and remove hasfree? Or leave it empty and soft deprecate it?

So we merge hasfree into haslocal and remove hasfree? Or leave it empty and soft deprecate it?

Hm, I was just writing up a rationale for this when I realized that we should just keephasfree and populate it correctly, and explain the special situation whereLOAD_FAST can be used to load a cell (previouslyLOAD_CLOSURE) separately.

Ok, then this PR is probably fine w.r.t. hasfree and haslocal.

The only list in oplists now is hascompare, which contains only COMPARE_OP:

>>> [opcode.opname[op] for op in opcode.hascompare]['COMPARE_OP']

It is used by dis to identify that its op (>=, ==, etc) needs to be displayed.

It is used by dis to identify that its op (>=, ==, etc) needs to be displayed.

Since there's only one opcode like this, maybe dis can just check whether it's that opcode? Or do you anticipate that in the future there will be multiple ones? (Were there ever?)

It is used by dis to identify that its op (>=, ==, etc) needs to be displayed.

Since there's only one opcode like this, maybe dis can just check whether it's that opcode? Or do you anticipate that in the future there will be multiple ones? (Were there ever?)

It's just this one all the way back to 3.8.

dis can stop using the list, but it's documented in the dis module so can we remove it?

dis can stop using the list, but it's documented in the dis module so can we remove it?

I guess deprecate it like hasjabs/hasjrel.

I think I need to add in whatsnew that the dis module's opcode lists are no longer also defined in the opcode module. The opcode module is not documented, but if you look on GitHub you can see some places where people import it.

I think I need to add in whatsnew that the dis module's opcode lists are no longer also defined in the opcode module. The opcode module is not documented, but if you look on GitHub you can see some places where people import it.

Or maybe this is a breaking change that I can't make without deprecation? I'm not sure what the status of the opcode module is.

I can put the lists back in opcode, and instead work to remove the dependency of the build on opcode.

I have a feeling that opcode is actually a better place than dis for the official public API. And that's probably why people have been importing it despite its undocumented status.

OK, I reverted the last few commits so we leave everything in opcode. We will rid the build of opcode in a future PR once the opcode.h file is generated from bytecodes.c.