Skip to content

Conversation

@vtjnash
Copy link
Member

@vtjnash vtjnash commented Jan 6, 2025

This field lost its meaning awhile back and is better tracked only as part of the compressed CodeInfo instead of trying to accurately copy and update this field.

Copy link
Member

@aviatesk aviatesk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The CI failure looks real, which looks like we are marking atomic fields incorrectly.

This field lost its meaning awhile back and is better tracked only as
part of the compressed CodeInfo instead of trying to accurately copy and
update this field.
@vtjnash vtjnash force-pushed the jn/relocatibility-field branch from 55cbd3d to d5ff803 Compare January 8, 2025 15:51
@vtjnash vtjnash dismissed aviatesk’s stale review January 8, 2025 15:51

fixed precompile atomic marking

@vtjnash vtjnash added the merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing label Jan 8, 2025
@vtjnash vtjnash merged commit 8bf2802 into master Jan 8, 2025
6 of 8 checks passed
@vtjnash vtjnash deleted the jn/relocatibility-field branch January 8, 2025 18:47
@IanButterworth IanButterworth removed the merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing label Jan 8, 2025
@Zentrik
Copy link
Member

Zentrik commented Feb 8, 2025

This seems to be the cause of the BigInt slowdown in https://github.com/JuliaCI/NanosoldierReports/blob/master/benchmark/by_date/2025-02/07/report.md

serenity4 pushed a commit to serenity4/julia that referenced this pull request May 1, 2025
This field lost its meaning awhile back and is better tracked only as
part of the compressed CodeInfo instead of trying to accurately copy and
update this field.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants