-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46.8k
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
[compiler] repro for dep merging edge case (non-hir) #31035
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
This was referenced Sep 23, 2024
facebook-github-bot
added
CLA Signed
React Core Team
Opened by a member of the React Core Team
labels
Sep 23, 2024
This was referenced Sep 25, 2024
josephsavona
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2024
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.
Nice find!!!! Yeah this makes sense, seems like we can adjust the merging logic to account for this case to keep the impact of fixing this case pretty limited.
mofeiZ
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
Found when writing #31037, summary copied from comments: This is an extreme edge case and not code we'd expect any reasonable developer to write. In most cases e.g. `(a?.b != null ? a.b : DEFAULT)`, we do want to take a dependency on `a?.b`. I found this trying to come up with edge cases that break the current dependency + CFG merging logic. I think it makes sense to error on the side of correctness. After all, we still take `a` as a dependency if users write `a != null ? a.b : DEFAULT`, and the same fix (understanding the `<hoistable> != null` test expression) works for both. Can be convinced otherwise though! ghstack-source-id: cc06afda59f7681e228495f5e35a596c20f875f5 Pull Request resolved: #31035
This was referenced Oct 1, 2024
This was referenced Oct 10, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Found when writing #31037, summary copied from comments:
This is an extreme edge case and not code we'd expect any reasonable developer to write. In most cases e.g.
(a?.b != null ? a.b : DEFAULT)
, we do want to take a dependency ona?.b
.I found this trying to come up with edge cases that break the current dependency + CFG merging logic. I think it makes sense to error on the side of correctness. After all, we still take
a
as a dependency if users writea != null ? a.b : DEFAULT
, and the same fix (understanding the<hoistable> != null
test expression) works for both. Can be convinced otherwise though!