KGrewal1 requested cfallin for a review on PR #9613.
KGrewal1 requested wasmtime-compiler-reviewers for a review on PR #9613.
KGrewal1 opened PR #9613 from KGrewal1:loop_analysis
to bytecodealliance:main
:
Some small simplifications I saw when looking through the loop analysis code, mostly regarding using inbuilt iterator method for greater simplicity
cfallin created PR review comment:
I'm not sure how I feel about this one either -- is this really more readable than the for-loop with an if-statement?
cfallin created PR review comment:
This iterator chain is a little too convoluted to be easily readable, IMHO. One thing that might help is to pull out an
is_loop_header
helper?It might also be nice to have a method on the domtree that returns an RPO iterator directly (
impl Iterator...
in return is fine). Then we could do something like:
for &block in domtree.cfg_rpo().filter(|&block| is_loop_header(cfg, domtree, block)) { ... }
cfallin submitted PR review:
Thanks for the PR. A few thoughts below. I think there may be some aspect of subjective taste here; but I'm not a huge fan of very large iterator chain expressions, because they take a lot of "mental type-inference" to understand intermediate steps and how the chain works, and they're harder to modify and maintain over time. They're not a huge amount worse than explicit for-loops, but here they don't really seem better either; so I'm not sure I see the "simplification" aspect. Happy to hear your thoughts though.
KGrewal1 submitted PR review.
KGrewal1 created PR review comment:
I think some of the complexity is in how I wrote the de structuring - changing it to
pred.inst
, as opposed to doing it between the pipes. Also would a collect be most appropriate here - used extend to ensure exact same semantics as before with push, but thewhile let should
drainstack
and so it is being extended from empty each time (in which case collect may make this more clear)
KGrewal1 updated PR #9613.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
Let's call this
is_loop_header
(check
doesn't tell me anything about what it returns; usually implies an invariant check or something like that instead). And the doc-comment should end with a period.
cfallin created PR review comment:
Full sentence is preferable: "A block is a loop header if it dominates any of its predecessors."
cfallin created PR review comment:
I think this would be a little clearer if we had a comment above the
stack.extend
, something like "Push all predecessors of this header that this header dominates onto the stack."
KGrewal1 submitted PR review.
KGrewal1 created PR review comment:
Was going to use
is_loop_header
but already in use by another function - check was best synonym but not ideal
KGrewal1 updated PR #9613.
KGrewal1 updated PR #9613.
KGrewal1 updated PR #9613.
KGrewal1 updated PR #9613.
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin merged PR #9613.
Last updated: Nov 22 2024 at 17:03 UTC