Skip to content

gh-107457: update dis documentation with changes in 3.12 #108900

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Oct 17, 2023

Conversation

MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Contributor

@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh commented Sep 5, 2023

This PR addresses the following points of #107457 which should be backported to 3.12

  • document MIN_INSTRUMENTED_OPCODE which is needed to determine what are the "normal" opcodes
  • clarify the LOAD_SUPER_ATTR stack manipulation description
  • fix the description of CALL_INSTRINSIC_2 stack manipulation
  • document END_SEND
  • explain how the presence of CACHE instructions impact the computation of jump instruction argument

I did not address the following points:

  • the description of COMPARE_OP which was corrected in 3.13. However 3.13 does not detail the meaning of the cache: should it be detailed
  • POP_JUMP_IF_NOT_NONE and POP_JUMP_IF_NONE were not described as actual instructions but this appear to have been fixed at least in 3.13 if it is not in 3.12 it should be backported

I plan to address the What's new issues in a follow up PR


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--108900.org.readthedocs.build/

carljm
carljm previously requested changes Sep 25, 2023
Copy link
Member

@carljm carljm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The LOAD_SUPER_ATTR changes look OK to me, modulo suggested edits.

Copy link
Member

@carljm carljm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The LOAD_SUPER_ATTR changes look good to me now. The other changes look reasonable, but I'd rather get @markshannon or @iritkatriel to confirm the accuracy of the new paragraph on 3.12 jump changes.

@carljm carljm dismissed their stale review September 25, 2023 17:52

requested changes were made

@@ -42,6 +42,16 @@ interpreter.
bytecode to specialize it for different runtime conditions. The
adaptive bytecode can be shown by passing ``adaptive=True``.

.. versionchanged:: 3.12
For instruction leading to a jump, a jump by 0 instruction should always
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What is an "instruction leading to a jump"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree it is a bit convoluted. I am happy to use a different phrasing. Initially I went for this because of opcode like FOR_ITER that do not jump often.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't understand what you mean, so I can't offer how to reword it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Would the following re-wording read better ?

When the offset of a jump instruction is 0, the jump should always lead to the instruction directly following the jump instruction. Starting with 3.12, some jump instructions can be followed by a :opcode:CACHE instruction. When the argument of such an instruction is 0, it will jump to the first non-CACHE instruction following the jump instruction.

As a consequence, the presence of the :opcode:CACHE instructions is transparent for forward jumps but need to be taken into account when reasoning about backward jumps.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think I see what you mean now.

Can we just say that "the arg of a jump is the offset from the instruction that appears immediately after the JUMP instruction's CACHE entries" ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Can we agree on the following ? I would prefer to insist on the forward backward asymmetry

The argument of a jump is the offset of the target relative to the instruction that appears immediately after the jump instruction's CACHE entries.

As a consequence, the presence of the CACHE instructions is transparent for forward jumps but need to be taken into account when reasoning about backward jumps.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure. I think "need --> needs" though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sure

@MatthieuDartiailh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Can I do anything to help merge this work ?

@iritkatriel
Copy link
Member

arguments and sets ``STACK[-1]`` to the result. Used to implement functionality that is
necessary but not performance critical.
Calls an intrinsic function with two arguments. Used to implement functionality
that is necessary but not performance critical::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
that is necessary but not performance critical::
that is not performance critical::

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can see you copied this from the 1-arg opcode. But I think it's redundant in both cases.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I will update it

@iritkatriel iritkatriel changed the title gh-107457: Improve dis documentation gh-107457: update dis documentation with some of the changes in 3.12 Oct 17, 2023
@iritkatriel iritkatriel changed the title gh-107457: update dis documentation with some of the changes in 3.12 gh-107457: update dis documentation with changes in 3.12 Oct 17, 2023
@iritkatriel iritkatriel enabled auto-merge (squash) October 17, 2023 12:50
@iritkatriel iritkatriel merged commit 198aa67 into python:main Oct 17, 2023
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @MatthieuDartiailh for the PR, and @iritkatriel for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2023
@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Oct 17, 2023

GH-110985 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot removed the needs backport to 3.12 only security fixes label Oct 17, 2023
@MatthieuDartiailh MatthieuDartiailh deleted the dis-docs branch October 17, 2023 15:04
vstinner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2023
…08900) (#110985)

gh-107457: update dis documentation with changes in 3.12 (GH-108900)
(cherry picked from commit 198aa67)

Co-authored-by: Matthieu Dartiailh <[email protected]>
Glyphack pushed a commit to Glyphack/cpython that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants