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

Avoid need to rerun extension inference after outline-cfg rewrite #534

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 14, 2023

Conversation

acl-cqc
Copy link
Contributor

@acl-cqc acl-cqc commented Sep 13, 2023

Mostly by updating the builder to allow specifying ExtensionSets in places not previously possible: cfg_builder(), BlockBuilder::new, and BlockBuilder::create.

I could go further: there is fn block_builder (and fn simple_block_builder and others), which frustratingly take FunctionTypes (that I cannot update to Signature because Sig requires an ExtensionSet not an Option thereof, so extra argument again)....

I guess requiring to specify None as extra param in the builder, may be an OK price to keep the current behaviour of "run inference later"??

The above then avoids needing to infer_and_validate in OutlineCfg tests after the rewrite, just validate works. It'd be good to keep the other Inline/Outline rewrites and InsertIdentity like this too, but it's probably not a desirable goal for anything taking a subgraph from the user (i.e. (Simple/)Replace), where we should certainly allow to infer requirements across the newly-inserted bit of graph...

@acl-cqc
Copy link
Contributor Author

acl-cqc commented Sep 13, 2023

@croyzor if you want to leave this until @ss2165 returns and discuss then, that's fine :)

@croyzor croyzor added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 14, 2023
Merged via the queue into main with commit 79de213 Sep 14, 2023
6 checks passed
@croyzor croyzor deleted the new/no_infer_after_outline_cfg branch September 14, 2023 07:47
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2023
Forgot to notice this in #534 before it was merged!
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants