compiler: apply more accurate effects to return_type_tfunc #55338
Conversation
This file contains 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
vtjnash
added
compiler:inference
|
That sounds good to me |
|
It looks like this CI failure happened consistently. Any idea? I assume just a bad test? But seems simple, and thus perhaps supposed to work? |
|
I updated the effects annotation for |
aviatesk
reviewed
Aug 9, 2024
In extreme cases, the compiler could mark this function for concrete-eval, even though that is illegal unless the compiler has first deleted this instruction. Otherwise the attempt to concrete-eval will re-run the function repeatedly until it hits a StackOverflow. Workaround to fix #55147
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 10, 2024
In extreme cases, the compiler could mark this function for concrete-eval, even though that is illegal unless the compiler has first deleted this instruction. Otherwise the attempt to concrete-eval will re-run the function repeatedly until it hits a StackOverflow. Workaround to fix #55147 @aviatesk You might know how to solve this even better, using post-optimization effect refinements? Since we should actually only apply the refinement of terminates=false => terminates=true (and thus allowing concrete eval) if the optimization occurs, and not just in inference thinks the optimization would be legal. --------- Co-authored-by: Shuhei Kadowaki <[email protected]>
aviatesk
removed
backport 1.11
lazarusA
pushed a commit
to lazarusA/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 17, 2024
…#55338) In extreme cases, the compiler could mark this function for concrete-eval, even though that is illegal unless the compiler has first deleted this instruction. Otherwise the attempt to concrete-eval will re-run the function repeatedly until it hits a StackOverflow. Workaround to fix JuliaLang#55147 @aviatesk You might know how to solve this even better, using post-optimization effect refinements? Since we should actually only apply the refinement of terminates=false => terminates=true (and thus allowing concrete eval) if the optimization occurs, and not just in inference thinks the optimization would be legal. --------- Co-authored-by: Shuhei Kadowaki <[email protected]>
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.
In extreme cases, the compiler could mark this function for concrete-eval, even though that is illegal unless the compiler has first deleted this instruction. Otherwise the attempt to concrete-eval will re-run the function repeatedly until it hits a StackOverflow.
Workaround to fix #55147
@aviatesk You might know how to solve this even better, using post-optimization effect refinements? Since we should actually only apply the refinement of terminates=false => terminates=true (and thus allowing concrete eval) if the optimization occurs, and not just in inference thinks the optimization would be legal.