Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Appearance settings

gh-115778: Add a tierN annotation for instruction definition #115815

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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Feb 23, 2024

Conversation

Eclips4
Copy link
Member

@Eclips4 Eclips4 commented Feb 22, 2024

Copy link
Member

@markshannon markshannon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like a nice improvement. Thanks.

Python/bytecodes.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Tools/cases_generator/lexer.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Eclips4 Eclips4 requested a review from markshannon February 22, 2024 18:10
Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Basically LG, though I have two nits:

  • If there ever is a Tier 3, I expect that several of the tier checks will have to be adjusted -- currently there seems to be an assumption that if it's not T1 then it's T2 and vice versa.
  • Inferring tier 1 from specialized could be done differently.

Tools/cases_generator/tier2_abstract_generator.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Tools/cases_generator/analyzer.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Tools/cases_generator/analyzer.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Eclips4 and others added 2 commits February 23, 2024 11:48
Copy link
Member

@gvanrossum gvanrossum left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@gvanrossum gvanrossum enabled auto-merge (squash) February 23, 2024 16:22
@Eclips4
Copy link
Member Author

Eclips4 commented Feb 23, 2024

@gvanrossum
CI/CD failure is unrelated. I can reproduce it locally on my Windows x86_64 build with JIT. I'll create an issue
UPD: Ken has already created an issue: #115859

@gvanrossum gvanrossum merged commit e4561e0 into python:main Feb 23, 2024
@Eclips4 Eclips4 deleted the issue-115778 branch February 23, 2024 17:53
@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

woodruffw pushed a commit to woodruffw-forks/cpython that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2024
…ython#115815)

This replaces the old `TIER_{ONE,TWO}_ONLY` macros. Note that `specialized` implies `tier1`.

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
diegorusso pushed a commit to diegorusso/cpython that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2024
…ython#115815)

This replaces the old `TIER_{ONE,TWO}_ONLY` macros. Note that `specialized` implies `tier1`.

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
LukasWoodtli pushed a commit to LukasWoodtli/cpython that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2025
…ython#115815)

This replaces the old `TIER_{ONE,TWO}_ONLY` macros. Note that `specialized` implies `tier1`.

Co-authored-by: Alex Waygood <Alex.Waygood@Gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.