Skip to content
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

[wasm] Bump chrome for testing - linux: 116.0.5845.140, windows: 116.0.5845.141 #1

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

github-actions[bot]
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Sep 3, 2023

No description provided.

giritrivedi pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 5, 2024
Fixes dotnet#95367.

Relevant part of the JitDump:

```
Using `if true` assertions from pred BB02
Assertions in: #1
fgMorphTree BB04, STMT00021 (before)
               [000070] DA---------                         *  STORE_LCL_VAR ubyte  V10 tmp9
               [000057] -----------                         \--*  CAST      int <- ubyte <- int
               [000006] -----------                            \--*  EQ        int
               [000004] -----------                               +--*  LCL_VAR   ref    V02 tmp1          (last use)
               [000055] H----------                               \--*  CNS_INT(h) ref     'Frozen EmptyPartition`1<Int32> object'

Assertion prop for index #1 in BB04:
               [000006] -----------                         *  EQ        int
GenTreeNode creates assertion:
               [000070] DA---+-----                         *  STORE_LCL_VAR ubyte  V10 tmp9
In BB04 New Local Constant Assertion: V10 == [0000000000000001], index = #2

fgMorphTree BB04, STMT00021 (after)
               [000070] DA---+-----                         *  STORE_LCL_VAR ubyte  V10 tmp9
               [000055] H----+-----                         \--*  CNS_INT(h) int
```

The JitDump is unfinished because the compiler crashes when trying to dump the last line. Clearly, the `CNS_INT` is no longer a handle at that point because we just bashed it to a constant 1.
giritrivedi pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2024
…#102133)

This generalizes the indir reordering optimization (that currently only
triggers for loads) to kick in for GT_STOREIND nodes.

The main complication with doing this is the fact that the data node of
the second indirection needs its own reordering with the previous
indirection. The existing logic works by reordering all nodes between
the first and second indirection that are unrelated to the second
indirection's computation to happen after it. Once that is done we know
that there are no uses of the first indirection's result between it and
the second indirection, so after doing the necessary interference checks
we can safely move the previous indirection to happen after the data
node of the second indirection.

Example:
```csharp
class Body { public double x, y, z, vx, vy, vz, mass; }

static void Advance(double dt, Body[] bodies)
{
    foreach (Body b in bodies)
    {
        b.x += dt * b.vx;
        b.y += dt * b.vy;
        b.z += dt * b.vz;
    }
}
```

Diff:
```diff
@@ -1,18 +1,17 @@
-G_M55007_IG04:  ;; offset=0x001C
+G_M55007_IG04:  ;; offset=0x0020
             ldr     x3, [x0, w1, UXTW #3]
             ldp     d16, d17, [x3, #0x08]
             ldp     d18, d19, [x3, #0x20]
             fmul    d18, d0, d18
             fadd    d16, d16, d18
-            str     d16, [x3, #0x08]
-            fmul    d16, d0, d19
-            fadd    d16, d17, d16
-            str     d16, [x3, #0x10]
+            fmul    d18, d0, d19
+            fadd    d17, d17, d18
+            stp     d16, d17, [x3, #0x08]
             ldr     d16, [x3, #0x18]
             ldr     d17, [x3, #0x30]
             fmul    d17, d0, d17
             fadd    d16, d16, d17
             str     d16, [x3, #0x18]
             add     w1, w1, #1
             cmp     w2, w1
             bgt     G_M55007_IG04
```
giritrivedi pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 5, 2024
* bug #1: don't allow for values out of the SerializationRecordType enum range

* bug #2: throw SerializationException rather than KeyNotFoundException when the referenced record is missing or it points to a record of different type

* bug #3: throw SerializationException rather than FormatException when it's being thrown by BinaryReader (or sth else that we use)

* bug #4: document the fact that IOException can be thrown

* bug #5: throw SerializationException rather than OverflowException when parsing the decimal fails

* bug #6: 0 and 17 are illegal values for PrimitiveType enum

* bug #7: throw SerializationException when a surrogate character is read (so far an ArgumentException was thrown)
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.

0 participants