Skip to content

gh-131798: JIT: Further optimize _CALL_ISINSTANCE for class tuples #134543

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

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tomasr8
Copy link
Member

@tomasr8 tomasr8 commented May 22, 2025

We can already const eval isinstance(inst, cls) calls when both arguments are known, but only if cls is a single class (e.g. int).
This PR adds support for isinstance(inst, (cls1, cls2, ..., clsN)). This allows us to optimize for example:

  • isinstance(42, (int, str)) (to True)
  • isinstance(42, (bool, str)) (to False)

We can narrow to True even when only some of the classes are known, as long as inst is an instance of one of the known classes.

@tomasr8 tomasr8 changed the title gh-134369: JIT: Further optimize _CALL_ISINSTANCE for class tuples gh-131798: JIT: Further optimize _CALL_ISINSTANCE for class tuples May 22, 2025
Comment on lines +2124 to +2125
self.assertIn("_BUILD_TUPLE", uops)
self.assertIn("_POP_CALL_TWO_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW", uops)
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

_BUILD_TUPLE is preventing us from optimizing out _POP_CALL_TWO_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW.
The bytecode is basically:

LOAD_CONST
LOAD_CONST
_BUILD_TUPLE
_POP_CALL_TWO_LOAD_CONST_INLINE_BORROW

To optimize this, we'd need some special handling for _BUILD_TUPLE in remove_unneeded_uops.

@tomasr8 tomasr8 marked this pull request as ready for review May 22, 2025 22:34
@tomasr8 tomasr8 requested a review from Fidget-Spinner as a code owner May 22, 2025 22:34
@tomasr8 tomasr8 requested a review from brandtbucher May 22, 2025 22:34
@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Jul 1, 2025

When you're done making the requested changes, leave the comment: I have made the requested changes; please review again.

@tomasr8
Copy link
Member Author

tomasr8 commented Jul 19, 2025

I'll fix the PR hopefully this weekend.

So that was a lie 😆

Anyway, I think I addressed all your comments! :)

I have made the requested changes; please review again

@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented Jul 19, 2025

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@brandtbucher: please review the changes made to this pull request.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot requested a review from brandtbucher July 19, 2025 09:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants