fix(interpreter): remove redundant stack underflow check in LOG instruction#3028
Merged
rakita merged 2 commits intobluealloy:mainfrom Oct 1, 2025
Merged
Conversation
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #3028 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
rakita
reviewed
Sep 30, 2025
| } | ||
| let Some(topics) = context.interpreter.stack.popn::<N>() else { | ||
| context.interpreter.halt(InstructionResult::StackUnderflow); | ||
| context.interpreter.halt_underflow(); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Redundant check from line 370 was not removed.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Redundant check from line 370 was not removed.
Yes, sorry , corrected
rakita
approved these changes
Oct 1, 2025
Merged
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This change removes a duplicate stack length check before calling popn::() in the LOG instruction and uses halt_underflow() in the None arm for consistency. The explicit len() < N guard is unnecessary because popn::() already performs an underflow-safe check and returns None when insufficient items are present. Keeping both checks adds duplication without improving safety and can confuse future maintenance.