-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.9k
gh-105481: add pseudo-instructions to the cases DSL #105506
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
Conversation
iritkatriel
commented
Jun 8, 2023
•
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading
edited by bedevere-bot
- Issue: Generate opcode metadata from bytecodes.c instead of opcode.py #105481
I'll look into adding unit tests for the generator. |
Actually the test are not running anymore, right? (I mean the ones in Tools/cases_generator/test_generator.py). |
Sadly those must be run manually (since they use pytest) and I have neglected to do so, so they are broken. I've filed gh-105540 for that. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A great start. I suppose before you land this you are going to make it so that the new metadata is actually used? Or will that be a separate PR?
I guess still waiting for the pseudo PR? |
I’m not sure where we would use the metadata for pseudo instructions. It probably makes sense to add assertions in the places where we map them to real instructions, that the metadata is the same. I’ll have a look tomorrow (or so). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I was confusing this PR with gh-105482. That one uses the metadata. This one LGTM!
|
|
I found some bugs, here are fixes: |