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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
bpo-43683: Handle generator entry in bytecode #25138
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
bpo-43683: Handle generator entry in bytecode #25138
Changes from all commits
3a41a50
1a29ec3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
If we're compiling a generator (or coroutine etc.) the new function assumes (without asserting) that entryblock is not NULL. But evidently it could be, since below on line 6690 there's a check whether it could be. I don't know how it could be NULL - that would mean there's no code in the function at all, but it seems there's code above that always adds at least one instruction (RETURN_VALUE on line 6668). So maybe the check for entryblock == NULL below can be replaced by an assert? (I'd place that assert right underneath the for-loop above on lines 6683-6686.
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.
entryblock cannot be NULL. I'll add the assert.