1.11 opaque pointer fix

[wsmoses]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Your PR requires formatting changes to meet the project's style guidelines.
Please consider running Runic (git runic main) to apply these changes.

Click here to view the suggested changes.

diff --git a/src/compiler.jl b/src/compiler.jl
index b5f82d39..1450d178 100644
--- a/src/compiler.jl
+++ b/src/compiler.jl
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ const JuliaEnzymeNameMap = Dict{String,Any}(
     "enz_no_derivative_exc" => EnzymeNoDerivativeError{Nothing, Nothing},
     "enz_no_derivative_mi_exc" => EnzymeNoDerivativeError{Core.MethodInstance, UInt},
     "enz_non_const_kwarg_exc" => NonConstantKeywordArgException,
-    "enz_callconv_mismatch_exc"=> CallingConventionMismatchError{Cstring},
+    "enz_callconv_mismatch_exc" => CallingConventionMismatchError{Cstring},
     "enz_illegal_ta_exc" => IllegalTypeAnalysisException,
     "enz_illegal_first_pointer_exc" => IllegalFirstPointerException,
     "enz_internal_exc" => EnzymeInternalError,
diff --git a/src/errors.jl b/src/errors.jl
index 7e8e3c10..2d3fe382 100644
--- a/src/errors.jl
+++ b/src/errors.jl
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ function Base.showerror(io::IO, ece::CallingConventionMismatchError)
         printstyled(io, "Hint"; bold = true, color = :cyan)
         printstyled(
             io,
-            ": You are currently on Julia 1.12, which changed its calling convention. Tracking issue for Enzyme adapting to this new calling convention is https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl/issues/2707.\n"; 
+            ": You are currently on Julia 1.12, which changed its calling convention. Tracking issue for Enzyme adapting to this new calling convention is https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl/issues/2707.\n";
             color = :cyan,
         )
     else
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ function Base.showerror(io::IO, ece::CallingConventionMismatchError)
     println(io)
 
 
-    if ece.backtrace isa Cstring
+    return if ece.backtrace isa Cstring
         Base.println(io, Base.unsafe_string(ece.backtrace))
     else
         Base.println(io, ece.backtrace)
diff --git a/src/llvm/transforms.jl b/src/llvm/transforms.jl
index bf7237ac..52be9b5a 100644
--- a/src/llvm/transforms.jl
+++ b/src/llvm/transforms.jl
@@ -944,11 +944,11 @@ function nodecayed_phis!(mod::LLVM.Module)
                                 B = LLVM.IRBuilder()
                                 position!(B, v)
 
-                                sPT = if !LLVM.is_opaque(value_type(v))
-                                    LLVM.PointerType(eltype(value_type(v)), 10)
-                                else
-                                    LLVM.PointerType(10)
-                                end
+                                    sPT = if !LLVM.is_opaque(value_type(v))
+                                        LLVM.PointerType(eltype(value_type(v)), 10)
+                                    else
+                                        LLVM.PointerType(10)
+                                    end
                                 vphi = phi!(B, sPT, "nondecay.vphi."*LLVM.name(v))
                                 ophi = phi!(B, value_type(offset), "nondecay.ophi"*LLVM.name(v))
 				phicache[v] = (vphi, ophi)

[github-actions]

Benchmark Results

	main	379cd51...	main / 379cd51...
basics/make_zero/namedtuple	0.0538 ± 0.0016 μs	0.0515 ± 0.0025 μs	1.05 ± 0.06
basics/make_zero/struct	0.25 ± 0.0054 μs	0.259 ± 0.0042 μs	0.965 ± 0.026
basics/overhead	5.56 ± 0.92 ns	4.7 ± 0.92 ns	1.18 ± 0.3
basics/remake_zero!/namedtuple	0.24 ± 0.0076 μs	0.233 ± 0.0066 μs	1.03 ± 0.044
basics/remake_zero!/struct	0.233 ± 0.0077 μs	0.24 ± 0.0072 μs	0.969 ± 0.043
fold_broadcast/multidim_sum_bcast/1D	10.3 ± 0.24 μs	10.3 ± 0.34 μs	1 ± 0.041
fold_broadcast/multidim_sum_bcast/2D	12.1 ± 0.25 μs	12.1 ± 0.23 μs	1 ± 0.028
time_to_load	1.23 ± 0.0049 s	1.23 ± 0.0054 s	0.996 ± 0.0059

Benchmark Plots

A plot of the benchmark results has been uploaded as an artifact at https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl/actions/runs/19351472566/artifacts/4563620900.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 18.75000% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 68.99%. Comparing base (05d589a) to head (379cd51).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/errors.jl	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/rules/activityrules.jl	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/rules/customrules.jl	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2778      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   68.94%   68.99%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          58       58              
  Lines       19961    19963       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        13763    13774      +11     
+ Misses       6198     6189       -9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.