Fix inliners to run all passes on IR and clean up correctly.

[stuartarchibald]

As title.

Fixes #4691
Fixes #4693
Fixes #5476

[stuartarchibald]

this overrides the behaviour here https://github.com/numba/numba/pull/5673/files#diff-aee5ebdb5580a36762cba728715f96d1R536-R537 and needs looking at

[stuartarchibald]

Is this true for overload inlines?

[sklam]

why is this needed?

[stuartarchibald]

without it, this:

======================================================================
ERROR: test_inlining_optional_constant (numba.tests.test_ir_inlining.TestGeneralInlining)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<path>numba/tests/test_ir_inlining.py", line 1043, in test_inlining_optional_constant
    self.check(impl, block_count='SKIP', inline_expect={'bar': True})
  File "<path>numba/tests/test_ir_inlining.py", line 103, in check
    self.assertEqual(test_impl(*args), j_func(*args))
  File "<path>numba/core/dispatcher.py", line 401, in _compile_for_args
    error_rewrite(e, 'typing')
  File "<path>numba/core/dispatcher.py", line 344, in error_rewrite
    reraise(type(e), e, None)
  File "<path>numba/core/utils.py", line 79, in reraise
    raise value.with_traceback(tb)
numba.core.errors.TypingError: Failed in inliner_custom_pipe mode pipeline (step: nopython frontend)
Type of variable 'b.1.382' cannot be determined, operation: unknown operation, location: unknown location (0:0)

File "unknown location", line 0:
<source missing, REPL/exec in use?>

[stuartarchibald]

Is this a problem? Do flags influence IR gen?

[sklam]

only in cfuncs it seems

[stuartarchibald]

leave it for now?

[stuartarchibald]

stuartarchibald@94f6bb2 achieves the same/similar, but as a strategy pushes inlining as high up the compilation chain as possible, and then just lets other passes run as usual. The inlined IR is not subjected to the full compilation pipelines, only closure inlining and generic rewrites.

[sklam]

Note: failing at

numba/numba/tests/test_mixed_tuple_unroller.py

Lines 1586 to 1599 in ff24fb1

	def test_inlined_unroll_list(self):
	@njit(inline='always')
	def foo(y):
	x = [10, y]
	r = 0
	for a in literal_unroll(x):
	r += a
	return r
	@njit
	def bar():
	return foo(12)
	self.assertEqual(bar(), 10 + 12)

because of literal_unroll(x) where x = [10, y]

[sklam]

NOTE: prefer this PR over stuartarchibald@94f6bb2

[stuartarchibald]

Note: failing at

numba/numba/tests/test_mixed_tuple_unroller.py

Lines 1586 to 1599 in ff24fb1

	def test_inlined_unroll_list(self):
	@njit(inline='always')
	def foo(y):
	x = [10, y]
	r = 0
	for a in literal_unroll(x):
	r += a
	return r
	@njit
	def bar():
	return foo(12)
	self.assertEqual(bar(), 10 + 12)

because of literal_unroll(x) where x = [10, y]

elect to skip for now, needs updates elsewhere

[sklam]

is this ready for review?

[stuartarchibald]

is this ready for review?

Let's say yes to get it moving, but also note there's a couple of thing we may need to look at already mentioned in the above.

[sklam]

It seems like this function is dead

[sklam]

this too

[stuartarchibald]

I added some tests for the dead functions to the tip of this branch: https://github.com/stuartarchibald/numba/commits/fix/5476_5_cont

My conclusion from adding them is that the interface still isn't quite right and that it'd make sense to also add to the class something that actually does the inlining work (stitches the blocks together etc), as well as computing the changes required. I'm going to remove those dead methods from the class as a result and open a ticket about future things to be done.

[stuartarchibald]

Work ticket: #5775

[sklam]

Thanks for the fix here. The inliner passes are complicated and there may need further work to clean it up, but this patch already provides important fixes and we know some downstream projects will need.