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] ReactiveIR break node and related block structuring #32022

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: gh/josephsavona/66/base
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

josephsavona
Copy link
Contributor

@josephsavona josephsavona commented Jan 8, 2025

Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):

Extends the sea-of-nodes ReactiveIR exploration from previous PRs.

Adds a new BreakNode to represent breaks (and continues, though not handled yet). Along with this change, graph construction now guarantees that there is a control dependency from the terminal of a block on all not-yet-depended-upon nodes in that block. Since nodes in a block will themselves have a transitive control dependency on the block's entry node, this means that there is a transitive control or data dependency from the block terminal through to all the nodes in that block, up to the block entry.

BreakNode also has a target, the node that its control would jump to. This unblocks conversion back to HIR or ReactiveFunction, and also provides the necessary information to run (abstract) interpretation using ReactiveIR.

This guarantees that nodes remain ordered. It also means that all nodes will appear used, since they are guaranteed to have at least one node dependending on them, the final node of their block. Thus (despite my comments in chat), dead code elimination against ReactiveIR does actually require a bit more than just running RPO and pruning unused nodes — DCE would have to look for nodes that are only used as control nodes, ie whose actual value is unused, and remove those. But we're not planning to use this for DCE anyway so this is more of an observation about the implications for this change.

Adds a new BreakNode to represent breaks (and continues, though not handled yet). Along with this change, graph construction now guarantees that there is a control dependency from the terminal of a block on all not-yet-depended-upon nodes in that block. Since nodes in a block will themselves have a transitive control dependency on the block's entry node, this means that there is a transitive control or data dependency from the block terminal through to all the nodes in that block, up to the block entry.

BreakNode also has a target, the node that its control would jump to. This unblocks conversion back to HIR or ReactiveFunction, and also provides the necessary information to run (abstract) interpretation using ReactiveIR.

This guarantees that nodes remain ordered. It also means that all nodes will appear used, since they are guaranteed to have at least one node dependending on them, the final node of their block. Thus (despite my comments in chat), dead code elimination against ReactiveIR does actually require a bit more than just running RPO and pruning unused nodes — DCE would have to look for nodes that are only used as control nodes, ie whose actual value is unused, and remove those. But we're not planning to use this for DCE anyway so this is more of an observation about the implications for this change.

[ghstack-poisoned]
josephsavona added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2025
Adds a new BreakNode to represent breaks (and continues, though not handled yet). Along with this change, graph construction now guarantees that there is a control dependency from the terminal of a block on all not-yet-depended-upon nodes in that block. Since nodes in a block will themselves have a transitive control dependency on the block's entry node, this means that there is a transitive control or data dependency from the block terminal through to all the nodes in that block, up to the block entry.

BreakNode also has a target, the node that its control would jump to. This unblocks conversion back to HIR or ReactiveFunction, and also provides the necessary information to run (abstract) interpretation using ReactiveIR.

This guarantees that nodes remain ordered. It also means that all nodes will appear used, since they are guaranteed to have at least one node dependending on them, the final node of their block. Thus (despite my comments in chat), dead code elimination against ReactiveIR does actually require a bit more than just running RPO and pruning unused nodes — DCE would have to look for nodes that are only used as control nodes, ie whose actual value is unused, and remove those. But we're not planning to use this for DCE anyway so this is more of an observation about the implications for this change.

ghstack-source-id: e3d74a3cc118d6ded95abee2d94114ccac5319ca
Pull Request resolved: #32022
@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the React Core Team Opened by a member of the React Core Team label Jan 8, 2025
…ring"


Extends the sea-of-nodes ReactiveIR exploration from previous PRs.

Adds a new BreakNode to represent breaks (and continues, though not handled yet). Along with this change, graph construction now guarantees that there is a control dependency from the terminal of a block on all not-yet-depended-upon nodes in that block. Since nodes in a block will themselves have a transitive control dependency on the block's entry node, this means that there is a transitive control or data dependency from the block terminal through to all the nodes in that block, up to the block entry.

BreakNode also has a target, the node that its control would jump to. This unblocks conversion back to HIR or ReactiveFunction, and also provides the necessary information to run (abstract) interpretation using ReactiveIR.

This guarantees that nodes remain ordered. It also means that all nodes will appear used, since they are guaranteed to have at least one node dependending on them, the final node of their block. Thus (despite my comments in chat), dead code elimination against ReactiveIR does actually require a bit more than just running RPO and pruning unused nodes — DCE would have to look for nodes that are only used as control nodes, ie whose actual value is unused, and remove those. But we're not planning to use this for DCE anyway so this is more of an observation about the implications for this change.

[ghstack-poisoned]
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.

2 participants