-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
Improve effect analysis of bitshifts by non Int
and UInt
Integer
s
#47567
Improve effect analysis of bitshifts by non Int
and UInt
Integer
s
#47567
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Jameson Nash <[email protected]>
Can we have a more descriptive title than "mess with..."? Also, can the claim about improved effect analysis be backed up with tests? |
Int
and UInt
Integer
s
tests added. |
Co-authored-by: Thomas Christensen <[email protected]>
adding backport-1.9 because this is needed for #47501 to be nothrow. |
Did this perhaps break BitIntegers package? Seeing this on a dependent package nightly CI failure:
|
Maybe the "mess with..." title was more accurate after all |
grr. I guess we have to revert this and make effect analysis smart enough to do this itself. @aviatesk does that seem possible to you? |
My pr has assume effects for both things currently, because with constprop LLVM figures out it can't throw anyway. So it's not a blocker or anything. It would just be nice |
What's the problem with this PR? Why not use |
the hard part of this PR is that before it |
So......should we open a new issue to track that BitIntegers.jl is still broken (can't load) from this PR? Or should we revert? It's making testing latest w/ a lot packages not work. |
I guess I'll revert. It will make me sad, but I don't know of a better option. |
Co-authored-by: Shuhei Kadowaki <[email protected]>
this improves the effect analysis of things like
UInt32 >> Int32