GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Seperate between scope exit & unconditional jump opcodes by ShaharNaveh · Pull Request #6841 · RustPython/RustPython

Conversation

@ShaharNaveh

@ShaharNaveh ShaharNaveh commented Jan 23, 2026 •
edited by coderabbitai Bot
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

See: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/1fa166888bd33538aab3f501174d512d6df22408/Include/internal/pycore_opcode_utils.h#L39-L44

and https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/1fa166888bd33538aab3f501174d512d6df22408/Include/internal/pycore_opcode_utils.h#L52-L55

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Refactor
    • Updated compiler control flow analysis for improved accuracy in dead-code elimination and stack-depth tracking.

✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@ShaharNaveh
Seperate between scope exit & unconditional jump opcodes
2ee48bc
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jan 23, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The PR refactors instruction classification semantics by splitting the unconditional_branch() predicate into two separate methods: is_unconditional_jump() for jump-specific instructions and is_scope_exit() for return/raise-related instructions. Callers in dead-code elimination and stack-depth analysis are updated accordingly.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary
Instruction classification API redesign
crates/compiler-core/src/bytecode/instruction.rs		 Replaces unconditional_branch() trait method with is_unconditional_jump() and is_scope_exit(). Splits predicate logic: jumps (JumpForward, JumpBackward, JumpBackwardNoInterrupt) map to is_unconditional_jump(); returns and raises map to is_scope_exit(). Updates implementations for Instruction, PseudoInstruction, and AnyInstruction via inst_either macro.
Codegen DCE and stack-depth analysis
crates/codegen/src/ir.rs		 Updates two callsites in CodeInfo::dce and CodeInfo::max_stackdepth to use is_scope_exit() || is_unconditional_jump() instead of unconditional_branch() for detecting block termination points.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

  • Remove SUBSCRIPT, JUMP_IF_{TRUE,FALSE}_OR_POP #6810: Modifies InstructionMetadata trait and instruction predicate implementations alongside this refactor of control-flow classification methods.
  • Remove ReturnConst/Break/Continue ops #6816: Adjusts unconditional_branch handling and instruction classification semantics in parallel with this PR's predicate split.
  • Bytecode instrumented placeholder #6741: Modifies InstructionMetadata implementations in the same instruction.rs file with overlapping structural changes.

Suggested reviewers

  • youknowone

Poem

🐰 A hop through control flow so bright,
Jumps and exits, now split just right!
One path for leaps, one for the end,
Stack depths and dead code, old friends.
🌿 ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1
❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
Check name Status Explanation Resolution
Docstring Coverage ⚠️ Warning Docstring coverage is 12.50% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.
✅ Passed checks (2 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check ✅ Passed The pull request title directly and clearly summarizes the main change: separating scope-exit opcodes from unconditional-jump opcodes, which aligns with both file changes and PR objectives.

✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.

✨ Finishing touches
  • 📝 Generate docstrings

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share
  • X
  • Mastodon
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
youknowone
youknowone approved these changes Jan 23, 2026
View reviewed changes

@youknowone youknowone left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
@youknowone
youknowone added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 23, 2026
Merged via the queue into RustPython:main with commit 37fe0cf Jan 23, 2026
13 checks passed

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@youknowone youknowone youknowone approved these changes

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

2 participants

@ShaharNaveh @youknowone
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.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.