fix: assembly dead code eliminator

[charles-cooper]

it was not aggressive enough, and could leave some instructions which mangle the assembly so it can't be turned into bytecode

What I did

How I did it

How to verify it

Commit message

Commit message for the final, squashed PR. (Optional, but reviewers will appreciate it! Please see our commit message style guide for what we would ideally like to see in a commit message.)

Description for the changelog

Cute Animal Picture

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (2d2a682) 84.99% compared to head (2be68d7) 84.97%.
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3791      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.99%   84.97%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          92       92              
  Lines       13717    13733      +16     
  Branches     3079     3078       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits        11659    11669      +10     
- Misses       1570     1576       +6     
  Partials      488      488              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[harkal]

Wouldn't it be advantageous to modify the code so that it begins searching for the end condition once a terminal instruction is detected, and then deletes the entire code chunk at once? This approach appears -IMO- easier to follow, and more efficient since we only delete once for every chunk, rather than for every instruction within the chunk.

Moreover, we might consider transitioning to a 'walk and mark' technique, which identifies used instructions and eliminates all dead code. While it may not significantly impact Venom-emitted assembly, it could potentially improve the efficiency of the current intermediate representation (IR).

[charles-cooper]

Wouldn't it be advantageous to modify the code so that it begins searching for the end condition once a terminal instruction is detected, and then deletes the entire code chunk at once? This approach appears -IMO- easier to follow, and more efficient since we only delete once for every chunk, rather than for every instruction within the chunk.

Moreover, we might consider transitioning to a 'walk and mark' technique, which identifies used instructions and eliminates all dead code. While it may not significantly impact Venom-emitted assembly, it could potentially improve the efficiency of the current intermediate representation (IR).

69d0372