Skip to content

gh-135447: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions #135478

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

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Ragna1204
Copy link

@Ragna1204 Ragna1204 commented Jun 13, 2025

This pull request fixes #135478 by:

  • Adding documentation for new 3.14 bytecode instructions in dis.rst.
  • Updating the CALL_FUNCTION_EX opcode's description to reflect its 3.14 semantics.

The following instructions were added:

  • BUILD_INTERPOLATION
  • LOAD_SMALL_INT
  • NOT_TAKEN

This change brings the dis docs up to date with the 3.14 implementation.

See #135478 for more context.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--135478.org.readthedocs.build/

@python-cla-bot
Copy link

python-cla-bot bot commented Jun 13, 2025

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

CLA signed

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot added awaiting review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news labels Jun 13, 2025
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Todo in Docs PRs Jun 13, 2025
@Ragna1204 Ragna1204 changed the title Fix-6876: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions and fixes to CALL_FUNCTION_EX gh-135447: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions Jun 14, 2025
@Ragna1204 Ragna1204 changed the title gh-135447: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions Fix-6876: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions and fixes to CALL_FUNCTION_EX Jun 14, 2025
@Ragna1204 Ragna1204 changed the title Fix-6876: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions and fixes to CALL_FUNCTION_EX gh-135447: Update dis.rst to reflect 3.14 bytecode instructions Jun 14, 2025
@efimov-mikhail
Copy link
Contributor

See #6876 for more context.

Is it correct link?


.. versionadded:: 3.14


Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why this have been removed from Unary operations section?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed it because it was causing conflict in a check as it was mentioned twice. If its better then i can re add this here and remove the other mention

``CALL_FUNCTION_EX`` pops all arguments and the callable object off the stack,
calls the callable object with those arguments, and pushes the return value
calls the callable with those arguments, and pushes the return value
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it better without "object" word?

@efimov-mikhail
Copy link
Contributor

Could you please provide here links to the exact PRs when these bytecodes are introduced?

@Fidget-Spinner
Copy link
Member

Fidget-Spinner commented Jun 14, 2025

I feel like this PR was AI-generated. Either that or it is misguided. Most of the documentation here is factually incorrect.

Sorry in advance if the PR was not AI generated.

@Ragna1204
Copy link
Author

Hi @efimov-mikhail and @Fidget-Spinner , sorry i was not focusing while writing the PR and added the link tag from some other project contribution i was doing. Thanks for pointing it out, i have fixed it now

@efimov-mikhail
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for pointing it out, i have fixed it now

But for now it's just a link for this PR itself.

@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity added the needs backport to 3.14 bugs and security fixes label Jun 15, 2025
@Fidget-Spinner
Copy link
Member

Fidget-Spinner commented Jun 15, 2025

I'm really sorry but I'm closing this PR. I suspect while it's not AI written, AI might have been used while sourcing the changes to the bytecode. While I recommend AI usage for things like grammar and sentence structure, it's not an accurate nor reliable source to use.

Even if not AI-sourced, the content is almost entirely factually inaccurate, that it would take as much effort for me to rewrite the PR as to open a PR myself.

I'm really sorry again. Please let me know if you think I was mistaken somewhere.

@Fidget-Spinner Fidget-Spinner removed the needs backport to 3.14 bugs and security fixes label Jun 15, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants