-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 299
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
[FIRRTL][LowerAnnotations] Fix non-probe type compat check. #6822
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Type equivalence is not commutative? This seems like an issue with the type equivalence check?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LOL yeah it's not symmetric and therefore also not an equivalence relation, possibly for other reasons I'm forgetting. This is @mmaloney-sf's favorite part about it 🙃 😉 .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear this is the FIRRTL spec's notion of "type equivalence", I don't think it's bugged (not for lack of being an equivalence anway) but at a very-quick glance it doesn't mention const there presently, although it's still not symmetric (Reset can connect to UInt, can't connect UInt to Reset).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point about resets which are obviously not commutative.
I think the problem here is more that the spec is presenting this as an "equivalence" when it's really "verification of connection source and destination". It's not inherently wrong that equality isn't commutative, it's just weird.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, shouldn't be calling its connectivity rules (or whatever) equivalence or equality probably as that's misleading if nothing else. I haven't checked but can't help but wonder if it was originally a proper equivalence and then drifted or something. Welp.
Anyway, mind approving the PR? 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it was before abstract reset. The spec was always written as something like "the source and destination must be equivalent types (see type equivalence section for a definition)." Notably, I don't think that "type equivalence" actually mattered except for connects. I.e., this was always that aforementioned connect verification. We should probably just roll it into the connect section.