-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
Control flow graph #222
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
Draft
JeanJPNM
wants to merge
54
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
control-flow-graph
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Control flow graph #222
+4,921
−2,698
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
✅ Deploy Preview for mlogjs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
since values are already immutable, making copies of them doesn't make sense, only creating indirections that must then be tracked by the optimizer
Blocks with more than one parent were being multiple times
91582fe
to
da23012
Compare
By having most control flow constructs of the language use the negated version of their condition instead of the condition itself, we can prevent (most of the time) the ugly code generation that caused two parts of the same construct (e.g. a for loop) to be distant from each other on the generated code. While that didn't have any impact on performance, it still made the generated code harder to read and reason about.
Since the end instruction does the same thing as a jump 0 always, the end-if represents its conditional counterpart, allowing us to use a single instruction in the generated code to do something previously done by two
For some reason I suddenly started having cyclical dependency issues in which EJumpKind would be undefined so I decided to just remove the file since it was no longer used anyways
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.
Closes #79.
Fixes #227.
Fixes #234.
This pull request does not aim to provide full backwards-compatible behavior, it instead aims to provide a solid foundation for future updates that address:
if
else
braches #171