Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

GH-92239: Respect PEP 523 #92245

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 4 commits into from
May 4, 2022
Merged

GH-92239: Respect PEP 523 #92245

merged 4 commits into from
May 4, 2022

Conversation

markshannon
Copy link
Member

Make sure that we respect PEP 523 when specializing

@markshannon
Copy link
Member Author

@itamaro

Copy link
Contributor

@itamaro itamaro left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm, thanks @markshannon !

@@ -1466,6 +1467,11 @@ specialize_py_call(PyFunctionObject *func, _Py_CODEUNIT *instr, int nargs,
assert(_Py_OPCODE(*instr) == CALL_ADAPTIVE);
PyCodeObject *code = (PyCodeObject *)func->func_code;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

will we want to add a check here for overridden vectorcall on func as well, or is it already covered somewhere else? (assuming the vectorcall set API sets the version to zero)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we want to check for that in #92257

Comment on lines 1165 to 1170
def test_specialize_before_intercept(self):
def func2():
pass
for _ in range(SUFFICIENT_TO_SPECIALIZE):
func2()
self.do_test(func2)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

more for my understanding - this test case fails without the added PEP-523 checks? (but the other one passes?)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Both tests should fail without the checks.

@@ -4890,6 +4890,7 @@ _PyEval_EvalFrameDefault(PyThreadState *tstate, _PyInterpreterFrame *frame, int

TARGET(CALL_PY_EXACT_ARGS) {
assert(call_shape.kwnames == NULL);
DEOPT_IF(tstate->interp->eval_frame, CALL);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't know how to verify that these opcodes (CALL_PY_EXACT_ARGS & CALL_PY_WITH_DEFAULTS) are the only ones where this check is needed - I trust you :)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Specializations of CALL and PRECALL listed here and here

@markshannon markshannon merged commit f8a2fab into python:main May 4, 2022
@markshannon markshannon deleted the fix-92239 branch September 26, 2023 12:49
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.

3 participants