You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
_INSERT_1_LOAD_CONST_INLINE(_BORROW) and _LOAD_CONST_UNDER_INLINE(_BORROW) have identical stack effects — they're basically the same thing with different names.
_LOAD_CONST_UNDER_INLINE(_BORROW) already has entries in op_without_push, so remove_unneeded_uops can properly simplify it. However _INSERT_1 don't, thus we should rename all _INSERT_1 usages to _LOAD_CONST_UNDER and remove the duplicate definitions.
Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
This is a minor feature, which does not need previous discussion elsewhere
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
_INSERT_1_LOAD_CONST_INLINE(_BORROW)and_LOAD_CONST_UNDER_INLINE(_BORROW)have identical stack effects — they're basically the same thing with different names.cpython/Python/bytecodes.c
Lines 5927 to 5937 in 0b20bff
cpython/Python/bytecodes.c
Lines 5968 to 5978 in 0b20bff
_LOAD_CONST_UNDER_INLINE(_BORROW)already has entries inop_without_push, soremove_unneeded_uopscan properly simplify it. However_INSERT_1don't, thus we should rename all_INSERT_1usages to_LOAD_CONST_UNDERand remove the duplicate definitions.Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
This is a minor feature, which does not need previous discussion elsewhere
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
#148230 (comment)
Linked PRs
_LOAD_CONST_UNDER_INLINE(_BORROW)in JIT #148236