JIT: Introduce O1K_VN #112889
Open
JIT: Introduce O1K_VN #112889
+47
−43
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
dotnet-issue-labeler
bot
added
the
area-CodeGen-coreclr
|
Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
|
/azp run runtime-coreclr libraries-pgo, runtime-coreclr jitstress |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 2 pipeline(s). |
This was referenced Feb 25, 2025
Open
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes a bug that caused #112872 revert
O1K_ARR_BNDused to have a complex semantics - it supported different kinds of asserts, now it's always used only withOAK_NO_THROWkind.The newly introduced
O1K_VNis sort of similar toO1K_LCLVARbut works for any VN.The change should actually be an improvement, because previously,
O1K_ARR_BNDwith ==/!= was a bit conservative on when to create such an assertion. Possible regressions from "too many assertions".