Avoid method instance normalization for opaque closure methods #59772
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
vtjnash
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2025
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2025
Fixes #59222. This issue was caused by a mismatch with `jl_new_opaque_closure_from_code_info_in_world` filling in the unnormalized method instance, and `new_opaque_closure` getting its `spec_ptr` from the normalized one via `jl_compile_method_internal`. For example, `g(xs...)` specialized as `g(:a, :b)` resulted in a different method instance than the corresponding normalized one: ```julia Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Symbol} # unnormalized Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Vararg{Symbol}} # normalized ``` Here I chose to align on using the unnormalized one from the `CodeInfo` at `OpaqueClosure` construction (the fix being a single-line change in that case), but we could also choose the normalized one if that is deemed preferable, so long as we use the same when storing the inferred code and when retrieving the `spec_ptr`. --- 🤖 Generated with some assistance from Claude Code. (cherry picked from commit e8667fb)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 12, 2025
Fixes #59222. This issue was caused by a mismatch with `jl_new_opaque_closure_from_code_info_in_world` filling in the unnormalized method instance, and `new_opaque_closure` getting its `spec_ptr` from the normalized one via `jl_compile_method_internal`. For example, `g(xs...)` specialized as `g(:a, :b)` resulted in a different method instance than the corresponding normalized one: ```julia Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Symbol} # unnormalized Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Vararg{Symbol}} # normalized ``` Here I chose to align on using the unnormalized one from the `CodeInfo` at `OpaqueClosure` construction (the fix being a single-line change in that case), but we could also choose the normalized one if that is deemed preferable, so long as we use the same when storing the inferred code and when retrieving the `spec_ptr`. --- 🤖 Generated with some assistance from Claude Code. (cherry picked from commit e8667fb)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 14, 2025
Fixes #59222. This issue was caused by a mismatch with `jl_new_opaque_closure_from_code_info_in_world` filling in the unnormalized method instance, and `new_opaque_closure` getting its `spec_ptr` from the normalized one via `jl_compile_method_internal`. For example, `g(xs...)` specialized as `g(:a, :b)` resulted in a different method instance than the corresponding normalized one: ```julia Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Symbol} # unnormalized Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Vararg{Symbol}} # normalized ``` Here I chose to align on using the unnormalized one from the `CodeInfo` at `OpaqueClosure` construction (the fix being a single-line change in that case), but we could also choose the normalized one if that is deemed preferable, so long as we use the same when storing the inferred code and when retrieving the `spec_ptr`. --- 🤖 Generated with some assistance from Claude Code. (cherry picked from commit e8667fb)
KristofferC
removed
the
backport 1.12
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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 #59222.
This issue was caused by a mismatch with
jl_new_opaque_closure_from_code_info_in_worldfilling in the unnormalized method instance, andnew_opaque_closuregetting itsspec_ptrfrom the normalized one viajl_compile_method_internal.For example,
g(xs...)specialized asg(:a, :b)resulted in a different method instance than the corresponding normalized one:Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Symbol} # unnormalized Tuple{Tuple{typeof(Main.g)}, Symbol, Vararg{Symbol}} # normalizedHere I chose to align on using the unnormalized one from the
CodeInfoatOpaqueClosureconstruction (the fix being a single-line change in that case), but we could also choose the normalized one if that is deemed preferable, so long as we use the same when storing the inferred code and when retrieving thespec_ptr.🤖 Generated with some assistance from Claude Code.