- Sponsor
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Canonicalize IR to disallow mutable GlobalRef in value position (#39893)
Generally we assume parameters can be duplicated without seeing side-effects. That is not entirely true of mutable globals and multi-threading. Refs: #36450 Fixes: #39508
- Loading branch information
Showing
2 changed files
with
2 additions
and
2 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
c0f9666
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.
Executing the daily package evaluation, I will reply here when finished:
@nanosoldier
runtests(ALL, isdaily = true)
c0f9666
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.
Your package evaluation job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt
c0f9666
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.
Failures seem to come from FileIO.jl, which now fails to precompile (due to an
@assert precompile(Iterators.Pair, ...)
) because of the changes in #39593. Revise.jl seems to have the same issue.c0f9666
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.
This seems to be very bad pattern that has been getting picked up by important packages. There's no reason for these packages to be running test in their loading, for using
@assert
for@test
, nor inferring things that will not be saved.c0f9666
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.
It's listed in the SnoopCompile.jl docs, https://github.com/timholy/SnoopCompile.jl/blob/89e75619882c622175dcff9ab50e9d28807789d9/docs/src/snoopi.md; I couldn't find whether it's also generated automatically like that. If anything, it should be some kind of warning not to break PkgEval as it did here. cc @timholy
c0f9666
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.
It's a way of making sure that the precompiles don't go stale. Otherwise if I refactor the package and change
foo(x)
tofoo(x, y)
, how am I supposed to know that I'm not successfully precompilling?c0f9666
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.
Could probably write a smart macro that creates a much nicer warning actually printing the method and signature that failed to precompile.
c0f9666
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.
That's essentially what @vtjnash did in #39905.
c0f9666
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.
Updates:
@warnpcfail
macro that package authors can use instead of@assert
, and updates the guidance in the docsLet me know if there are others.
c0f9666
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.
@nanosoldier
runbenchmarks("string", vs="@3ff44eab64c554b31a87df1b972e99959ad15e54")
c0f9666
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.
Your benchmark job has completed - possible performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @christopher-dG