Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32k
gh-131798: Optimize_ITER_CHECK_TUPLE
#134803
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
gh-131798: Optimize_ITER_CHECK_TUPLE
#134803
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Nice, thanks! Normally we want to add a test verifying the optimization is working too. However, this is a special case --- just to let you know how the tracer currently works, we trace from backwards jumps. Once we see a for loop, we try "closing" the loop. Thus, we would never see_ITER_CHECK_TUPLE
except for a nested for loop. However, since the inner loop will always warm up before the outer loop, it will be hard to extract the real trace we want to inspect.
In short, your testing code might look like this:
for i in range(WARMUP): for x in (1,2,3): pass
but that will generate 2 JIT executors, not just 1, so it will cause us some issues when trying to identify the jitted code.
This is more of a side ramble about the limitations of our testing infrastructure, nothing you can do to fix it till we fix the testing on our side.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Thanks@Fidget-Spinner and@tomasr8 for reviewing |
79d81f7
intopython:mainUh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.