dfa: include site id in Call and Instance #2753
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
The code did not set the `msg` field in the error to any value resulting in DFA with higher accuracy (which will come in the next PRs) to fail to find any value here.
…and index A `site` is an int the identifies an expression in a code block, so it is a more conveninient way compared ot passing the pair `c`/`i` that is so far used in FUIR. Eventually, codeblock indices should be removed completely and replaced by `site`s only. This patch adds a convenience method `IR.addCode` that manages the calculation of `site` and `getExpr` as a temporary convenience method to get an Expr for given `c`/`i`.
This replaces the cumbersome `codeblockId` and `codeblockIndesx` pair, but so far there is no semantic change.
This was referenced Mar 18, 2024
michaellilltokiwa
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This replaces the cumbersome
codeblockIdandcodeblockIndesxpair, but so far there is no semantic change.This should be reviewed against #2752, this is part three of my attempt to split up #2743 into several PRs.