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] Allow more instruction kinds btw merged scopes #29881

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 14, 2024

Conversation

josephsavona
Copy link
Contributor

@josephsavona josephsavona commented Jun 12, 2024

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

Updates our scope merging pass to allow more types of instructions to intervene btw scopes. This includes all the non-allocating kinds of nodes that are considered reorderable in #29863. It's already safe to merge scopes with these instructions — we only merge if the lvalue is not used past the next scope. Additionally, without changing this pass reordering isn't very effective, since we would reorder to add these types of intervening instructions and then not be able to merge scopes.

Sequencing this first helps to see the win just from reordering alone.

Updates our scope merging pass to allow more types of instructions to intervene btw scopes. This includes all the non-allocating kinds of nodes that are considered reorderable in #29863. It's already safe to merge scopes with these instructions — we only merge if the lvalue is not used past the next scope. Additionally, without changing this pass reordering isn't very effective, since we would reorder to add these types of intervening instructions and then not be able to merge scopes.

Sequencing this first helps to see the win just from reordering alone.

[ghstack-poisoned]
Copy link

vercel bot commented Jun 12, 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 Jun 12, 2024 10:45pm

@react-sizebot
Copy link

Comparing: 55fdcf8...b77ee8d

Critical size changes

Includes critical production bundles, as well as any change greater than 2%:

Name +/- Base Current +/- gzip Base gzip Current gzip
oss-stable/react-dom/cjs/react-dom.production.js = 6.66 kB 6.66 kB = 1.82 kB 1.82 kB
oss-stable/react-dom/cjs/react-dom-client.production.js = 497.80 kB 497.80 kB = 89.24 kB 89.24 kB
oss-experimental/react-dom/cjs/react-dom.production.js = 6.67 kB 6.67 kB = 1.83 kB 1.83 kB
oss-experimental/react-dom/cjs/react-dom-client.production.js = 502.62 kB 502.62 kB = 89.94 kB 89.94 kB
facebook-www/ReactDOM-prod.classic.js = 597.04 kB 597.04 kB = 105.31 kB 105.31 kB
facebook-www/ReactDOM-prod.modern.js = 571.38 kB 571.38 kB = 101.25 kB 101.25 kB
test_utils/ReactAllWarnings.js Deleted 62.88 kB 0.00 kB Deleted 15.69 kB 0.00 kB

Significant size changes

Includes any change greater than 0.2%:

Expand to show
Name +/- Base Current +/- gzip Base gzip Current gzip
test_utils/ReactAllWarnings.js Deleted 62.88 kB 0.00 kB Deleted 15.69 kB 0.00 kB

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against b77ee8d

@josephsavona josephsavona merged commit b77ee8d into gh/josephsavona/29/base Jun 14, 2024
55 checks passed
josephsavona added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 14, 2024
Updates our scope merging pass to allow more types of instructions to intervene btw scopes. This includes all the non-allocating kinds of nodes that are considered reorderable in #29863. It's already safe to merge scopes with these instructions — we only merge if the lvalue is not used past the next scope. Additionally, without changing this pass reordering isn't very effective, since we would reorder to add these types of intervening instructions and then not be able to merge scopes.

Sequencing this first helps to see the win just from reordering alone.

ghstack-source-id: 79263576d8eaeb45ef4d1ec4951478459853a287
Pull Request resolved: #29881
@josephsavona josephsavona deleted the gh/josephsavona/29/head branch June 14, 2024 21:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants