Fixed a recursive inling bug, added a test for it #666
+103
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
antoyo
reviewed
May 9, 2025
FractalFir
force-pushed
the
master
branch
3 times, most recently
from
f217230 to
b6eb7c2
Compare
antoyo
reviewed
May 10, 2025
antoyo
reviewed
May 10, 2025
|
Thanks for your contribution! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 #599.
Instead of always translating
#[inline(always)](which is a hint) toFnAttribute::AlwaysInline(which makes inlining mandatory), we now do so only for functions which don't call any functions with the#[inline(always)]or the rustc force inline attribute.In cases where
#[inline(always)]is applied to a function which might be recursive, it is demoted to#[inline]instead.This breaks the cycle, and prevents libjitgcc errors.
The regression test checks for direct and indirect recursion.