Introduce tagging and not while going down on boolean switch #409
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
chambart
force-pushed
the
boolean_switch_while_going_down
branch
from
40d8fa7 to
78773cf
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
To avoid the problem with variables created while going up, this creates the required tagging and boolean_not operations while going down.
It looks for the presence of those variables in the CSE env, and checks if the scrutinee is a constant.
If they are available, the variables are passed to the rebuild. Otherwise a lets are introduced around the switch and simplify is called on it. This means that simplify_switch can be entered up to 3 times for a given switch. I don't know if there is a better solution. If there is a bug in the CSE or something around that, it might turn into an infinite loop.
I might have made some mistakes around operation counting: I didn't record any 'introduced operation'. Should I do that ? It seems like it might be required maybe ?
This is not required as is, it is possible for data_flow to do without this patch, but this feels cleaner than the other version.