[go: nahoru, domu]
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Incorrect optimization in JIT build #121012

Open
Eclips4 opened this issue Jun 25, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Incorrect optimization in JIT build #121012

Eclips4 opened this issue Jun 25, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
@markshannon
Labels
type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error

Comments

@Eclips4
Copy link
Member
Eclips4 commented Jun 25, 2024 •
edited by github-actions bot
Loading

Bug report

Bug description:

Reproducer:

def foo():
    a = [1, 2, 3]
    exhit = iter(a)
    for _ in exhit:
        pass
    a.append("this should'be in exhit")
    print(f"got {list(exhit)}, should be []")

foo()
foo()
foo()
foo()
foo()
foo()

Output:

got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got ["this should'be in exhit"], should be []

Obviously, the last line is incorrect.

Output with a PYTHON_LLTRACE=2 env:

got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
got [], should be []
Optimizing foo (/home/eclips4/programming-languages/cpython/example.py:1) at byte offset 42
   1 ADD_TO_TRACE: _START_EXECUTOR (0, target=21, operand=0x7f4646e59832)
21: JUMP_BACKWARD(5)
   2 ADD_TO_TRACE: _CHECK_VALIDITY_AND_SET_IP (0, target=21, operand=0x7f4646e59832)
   3 ADD_TO_TRACE: _TIER2_RESUME_CHECK (0, target=21, operand=0)
18: FOR_ITER_LIST(3)
   4 ADD_TO_TRACE: _CHECK_VALIDITY_AND_SET_IP (0, target=18, operand=0x7f4646e5982c)
   5 ADD_TO_TRACE: _ITER_CHECK_LIST (3, target=18, operand=0)
   6 ADD_TO_TRACE: _GUARD_NOT_EXHAUSTED_LIST (3, target=18, operand=0)
   7 ADD_TO_TRACE: _ITER_NEXT_LIST (3, target=18, operand=0)
20: STORE_FAST(2)
   8 ADD_TO_TRACE: _CHECK_VALIDITY_AND_SET_IP (0, target=20, operand=0x7f4646e59830)
   9 ADD_TO_TRACE: _STORE_FAST (2, target=20, operand=0)
21: JUMP_BACKWARD(5)
  10 ADD_TO_TRACE: _CHECK_VALIDITY_AND_SET_IP (0, target=21, operand=0x7f4646e59832)
  11 ADD_TO_TRACE: _JUMP_TO_TOP (0, target=0, operand=0)
Created a proto-trace for foo (/home/eclips4/programming-languages/cpython/example.py:1) at byte offset 36 -- length 11
Optimized trace (length 10):
   0 OPTIMIZED: _START_EXECUTOR (0, jump_target=7, operand=0x7f4646e59e80)
   1 OPTIMIZED: _TIER2_RESUME_CHECK (0, jump_target=7, operand=0)
   2 OPTIMIZED: _ITER_CHECK_LIST (3, jump_target=8, operand=0)
   3 OPTIMIZED: _GUARD_NOT_EXHAUSTED_LIST (3, jump_target=9, operand=0)
   4 OPTIMIZED: _ITER_NEXT_LIST (3, target=18, operand=0)
   5 OPTIMIZED: _STORE_FAST_2 (2, target=20, operand=0)
   6 OPTIMIZED: _JUMP_TO_TOP (0, target=0, operand=0)
   7 OPTIMIZED: _DEOPT (0, target=21, operand=0)
   8 OPTIMIZED: _EXIT_TRACE (0, exit_index=0, operand=0)
   9 OPTIMIZED: _EXIT_TRACE (0, exit_index=1, operand=0)
got ["this should'be in exhit"], should be []

It's definitely related to this part of code:

cpython/Python/optimizer.c

Lines 1027 to 1033 in e4a97a7

if (is_for_iter_test[opcode]) {
/* Target the POP_TOP immediately after the END_FOR,
* leaving only the iterator on the stack. */
int extended_arg = inst->oparg > 255;
int32_t next_inst = target + 1 + INLINE_CACHE_ENTRIES_FOR_ITER + extended_arg;
jump_target = next_inst + inst->oparg + 1;
}

I guess the culprit is there. If we remove the _GUARD_NOT_EXHAUSTED_LIST from is_for_iter_test, the problem will go away (although it can still be reproduced in other ways using other (range, tuple) iterators).

CPython versions tested on:

CPython main branch

Operating systems tested on:

Linux, macOS
@Eclips4 Eclips4 added type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error topic-JIT labels Jun 25, 2024
@Eclips4 Eclips4 mentioned this issue Jun 25, 2024
Draft
@brandtbucher
Copy link
Member

This is a tier two thing, not a JIT thing. Let's reserve the topic-JIT label for issues that reproduce with --enable-experimental-jit (but not --enable-experimental-jit=interpreter).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@markshannon markshannon

Labels
type-bug An unexpected behavior, bug, or error
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@markshannon @brandtbucher @Eclips4