GeezerVison

Thanks!

Personally, I'm not sure that requiring the names to be in sync gains us anything. What's really useful is making sure that the stack effects are the same; if not, it's a serious bug in the optimizer. Making the names match just sort of creates busywork for anyone adding new optimizer cases.

And I think it's totally normal for something that's used in the bytecodes to be unused in the optimizer, and vice-versa. So I'd rather just have a special case for when one is unused (which the code generator can use to make the instruction more efficient), instead of forcing them to be loaded and the warnings to be manually silenced.

I'll wait for others to chime in, though. It's not a huge deal.

Thanks!

Personally, I'm not sure that requiring the names to be in sync gains us anything. What's really useful is making sure that the stack effects are the same; if not, it's a serious bug in the optimizer. Making the names match just sort of creates busywork for anyone adding new optimizer cases.

And I think it's totally normal for something that's used in the bytecodes to be unused in the optimizer, and vice-versa. So I'd rather just have a special case for when one is unused (which the code generator can use to make the instruction more efficient), instead of forcing them to be loaded and the warnings to be manually silenced.

I agree on the unused part (see the comment above), but I think having names matching is useful, if just for the sake of standardization.

Thanks for the feedback! I updated the PR:

• Ignore unused when checking uop names
• Ensure that the uop size matches

Thanks to special-casing unused, I didn't need to modify bytecodes.c at all.

I also added skip news, since this is an internal change.

(I'll wait for the CI to pass and then mark it as ready)

I plan to merge this after 3.14 beta 1

(fixed a conflict)

@brandtbucher merging this in the next 24 hours. Watch out for merge conflicts!