Pablo Galindo Salgado <[email protected]> added the comment:
Serhiy, this is the code that was incorrectly optimized:
3 0 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (g)
2 LOAD_ATTR 1 (__code__)
4 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE 8
6 JUMP_FORWARD 4 (to 12)
>> 8 LOAD_CONST 0 (None)
10 POP_JUMP_IF_FALSE 20
4 >> 12 LOAD_GLOBAL 2 (print)
14 LOAD_CONST 2 ('Called!')
16 CALL_FUNCTION 1
18 POP_TOP
>> 20 LOAD_CONST 0 (None)
22 RETURN_VALUE
def g():
if True if g.__code__ else None:
print("Called!")
g()
The problem is that [LOAD_CONST 0 (None)] made the peephole to
delete the block because it does not detect that previous conditions in the
same conditional could be True. The general case was made by looking back for
POP_JUMP_IF_{FALSE,TRUE} but with this construct JUMP_FORWARD appears.
I think handling this condition in the peephole optimizer can be very dangerous
error prone to get right because all the information is lost, but doing it at
the ast level makes us lose syntax errors in optimized blocks, which is also
wrong. Any ideas?
It happens here in Cython:
https://github.com/cython/cython/blob/master/Cython/Compiler/Nodes.py#L5131
That's why the errors manifest as pickling errors
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue37289>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
