Implement return prioritization (2nd try) #1788
Closed
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
patrickbkr
pushed a commit
to patrickbkr/roast
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 27, 2024
Discussed in Raku/problem-solving#417 Depends on these three PRs: - MoarVM/MoarVM#1782 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1785 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1788
This was referenced Jan 27, 2024
patrickbkr
force-pushed
the
return-prioritization2
branch
from
86f74c4 to
6b5ac9a
Compare
|
I now have the JIT bits in place as well. I still fail to test it though (as in, I haven't managed to produce a test case that fails with the JIT bits left out). |
In general, if a &return was called in a routine, we don't want any other code in exit handlers to interfere with that return from returning. It's possible for exit handlers to escape normal control flow (e.g. via a &return). In that case instead of reaching the handler the unwind targets, we would return to the frame's return_address. To make things right, we tune the unwind target frame's return address to point to the handler. Also set that frames RETURNING flag and preserve the return value, getlexpayload can then pick it up again. Related to Raku/problem-solving#417
patrickbkr
force-pushed
the
return-prioritization2
branch
from
6b5ac9a to
ce022a1
Compare
patrickbkr
pushed a commit
to patrickbkr/roast
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2024
Discussed in Raku/problem-solving#417 Depends on these three PRs: - MoarVM/MoarVM#1782 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1785 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1788
patrickbkr
pushed a commit
to patrickbkr/roast
that referenced
this pull request
May 28, 2024
Discussed in Raku/problem-solving#417 Depends on these three PRs: - MoarVM/MoarVM#1782 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1785 - MoarVM/MoarVM#1788
|
I just found a case where this implementation fails. Thus this PR is draft again. |
|
Superseded by #1812 |
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.
In general, if a &return was called in a routine, we don't want any other code in exit handlers to interfere with that return from returning.
It's possible for exit handlers to escape normal control flow (e.g. via a &return). In that case instead of reaching the handler the unwind targets, we would return to the frame's return_address. To make things right, we tune the unwind target frame's return address to point to the handler. Also set that frames RETURNING flag and preserve the return value, getlexpayload can then pick it up again.
JIT implementation of
lastexpayloadis TBD.Related to Raku/problem-solving#417