8000 gh-131798: JIT: Narrow the return type of `_CONTAINS_OP_SET` to bool by tomasr8 · Pull Request #132057 · python/cpython · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

gh-131798: JIT: Narrow the return type of _CONTAINS_OP_SET to bool #132057

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 5, 2025
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Next Next commit
Allow the JIT to remove an extra _TO_BOOL_BOOL
instruction after _CONTAINS_OP_SET by setting
the return type to bool.
  • Loading branch information
tomasr8 committed Apr 3, 2025
commit c82f9400839c58d9f12e91b67256c92a6f467293
26 changes: 26 additions & 0 deletions Lib/test/test_capi/test_opt.py
8000
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1603,6 +1603,32 @@ def testfunc(n):
self.assertNotIn("_COMPARE_OP_INT", uops)
self.assertIn("_POP_TWO_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW", uops)

def test_to_bool_bool_contains_op_set(self):
"""
Test that _TO_BOOL_BOOL is removed from code like:

res = foo in some_set
if res:
....

"""
def testfunc(n):
x = 0
s = {1, 2, 3}
for _ in range(n):
a = 2
in_set = a in s
if in_set:
x += 1
Comment on lines +1616 to +1622
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We might be able to simplify this further, I wasn't sure how much the peepholer would optimize out if I used e.g. 2 in s directly.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

2 in s would have been fine, but this works well too!

return x

res, ex = self._run_with_optimizer(testfunc, TIER2_THRESHOLD)
self.assertEqual(res, TIER2_THRESHOLD)
self.assertIsNotNone(ex)
uops = get_opnames(ex)
self.assertIn("_CONTAINS_OP_SET", uops)
self.assertNotIn("_TO_BOOL_BOOL", uops)

def test_remove_guard_for_known_type_str(self):
def f(n):
for i in range(n):
Expand Down
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions Python/optimizer_bytecodes.c
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -477,6 +477,10 @@ dummy_func(void) {
res = sym_new_type(ctx, &PyBool_Type);
}

op(_CONTAINS_OP_SET, (left, right -- res)) {
res = sym_new_type(ctx, &PyBool_Type);
}

op(_LOAD_CONST, (-- value)) {
PyObject *val = PyTuple_GET_ITEM(co->co_consts, this_instr->oparg);
int opcode = _Py_IsImmortal(val) ? _LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW : _LOAD_CONST_INLINE;
Expand Down
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions Python/optimizer_cases.c.h

Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.

0