GH-116422: Modify a few uops so that they can be supported by tier 2 with hot/cold splitting #116832
Conversation
| @@ -138,12 +138,12 @@ extern void _PyEval_DeactivateOpCache(void); | |||
| /* With USE_STACKCHECK macro defined, trigger stack checks in | |||
| _Py_CheckRecursiveCall() on every 64th call to _Py_EnterRecursiveCall. */ | |||
| static inline int _Py_MakeRecCheck(PyThreadState *tstate) { | |||
| return (tstate->c_recursion_remaining-- <= 0 | |||
| return (tstate->c_recursion_remaining-- < 0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason this change is here is to make the guard tstate->c_recursion_remaining <= 0 instead of tstate->c_recursion_remaining <= 1. Comparing to zero is generally faster.
It also seems more correct. If c_recursion_remaining is 1, that suggest that there is 1 remaining call, not 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The actual number we compare to doesn't really matter, as long as we are consistent.
| @@ -3616,13 +3614,11 @@ dummy_func( | |||
| PyObject *self = args[0]; | |||
| DEOPT_IF(!Py_IS_TYPE(self, method->d_common.d_type)); | |||
| DEOPT_IF(meth->ml_flags != METH_NOARGS); | |||
| // CPython promises to check all non-vectorcall function calls. | |||
| DEOPT_IF(tstate->c_recursion_remaining <= 0); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The idea is that after DEOPT we will end up doing GOTO_ERROR in the original bytecode? (Is that what the comment is saying?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comment refers to our obligation to check the C recursion limit for almost all builtin function calls.
We can fulfil that obligation more cheaply this way.
…ier 2 with hot/cold splitting (pythonGH-116832)
…ier 2 with hot/cold splitting (pythonGH-116832)
…ier 2 with hot/cold splitting (pythonGH-116832)
This PR unifies the error handling of a few uops so that they either use only
EXIT_IFor onlyGOTO_ERROR.