Skip to content
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

[compiler] Flatten scopes based on fallthrough, not scope range #30398

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 24, 2024

Conversation

josephsavona
Copy link
Contributor

@josephsavona josephsavona commented Jul 19, 2024

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They should always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jul 19, 2024

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
react-compiler-playground ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback Jul 23, 2024 1:13am

…range"

Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link
Contributor

@mofeiZ mofeiZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense! Our instruction ids are not guaranteed to be always increasing (e.g. BuildReactiveScopeTerminalsHIR for example inserts scope terminals, re-using existing instruction ids)

EDIT: ohhh nvm, thanks for fixing in #30399

…range"

Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

[ghstack-poisoned]
@josephsavona josephsavona merged commit d45ce65 into gh/josephsavona/33/base Jul 24, 2024
21 checks passed
josephsavona added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: #30398
@josephsavona josephsavona deleted the gh/josephsavona/33/head branch July 24, 2024 00:22
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
felixshiftellecon added a commit to felixshiftellecon/react that referenced this pull request Jul 24, 2024
Once we create scopes, we should prefer to use the block structure to identify active scope ranges rather than the scope range. They _should_ always be in sync, but ultimately the block structure determine the active range (ie the id of the 'scope' terminal and the terminal's fallthrough block).

ghstack-source-id: 730b6d1cfaf0eb689d71057c78a48045ac4fb11c
Pull Request resolved: facebook#30398
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CLA Signed React Core Team Opened by a member of the React Core Team
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants