Inlining: Handle local dependencies when splitting#8064
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Unfortunately fuzzing did not find this, as these split-inlining patterns are intricate... any fuzzer change usually breaks the pattern entirely. |
dschuff
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In pattern B there, we handle stuff like
We split out the
ifbody if it is large-enough, which allows inlining theifcondition + the return (efficient if the condition rarely happens). This did
not handle local effects: imagine that the if body contains
x = 42, thenafter splitting it out to another function, that value is not picked up in
the return of x. Fix that by checking local dependencies.
More detailed example:
After this PR, we do not do such split inlining.