[compiler] Allow sequence expressions in for loops, and prevent DCE of declarations when the variable is reassigned in a value block #31723
+92
−13
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
…f declarations when the variable is reassigned in a value block Summary: Two somewhat unrelated fixes that combine to allow loops like `for (i =1, j =1; ...)` to be handled. We introduce a new case for building reactive functions when a block prior to a goto doesnt generate a value; this is the case for the fallthrough of sequence blocks in for loop inits, since the value is not read by anything. We also make it so that we don't DCE declarations of variables that are written to in value blocks. If we did DCE such declarations, we would then later convert the reassignment to a const declaration--but declarations in value blocks are banned. [ghstack-poisoned]
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
mvitousek
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 10, 2024
…f declarations when the variable is reassigned in a value block Summary: Two somewhat unrelated fixes that combine to allow loops like `for (i =1, j =1; ...)` to be handled. We introduce a new case for building reactive functions when a block prior to a goto doesnt generate a value; this is the case for the fallthrough of sequence blocks in for loop inits, since the value is not read by anything. We also make it so that we don't DCE declarations of variables that are written to in value blocks. If we did DCE such declarations, we would then later convert the reassignment to a const declaration--but declarations in value blocks are banned. ghstack-source-id: 7468bc8 Pull Request resolved: #31723
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale. If this pull request is still relevant, please leave any comment (for example, "bump"), and we'll keep it open. We are sorry that we haven't been able to prioritize reviewing it yet. Your contribution is very much appreciated. |
github-actions
bot
added
the
Resolution: Stale
|
Closing this pull request after a prolonged period of inactivity. If this issue is still present in the latest release, please ask for this pull request to be reopened. Thank you! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Stack from ghstack (oldest at bottom):
Summary:
Two somewhat unrelated fixes that combine to allow loops like
for (i =1, j =1; ...)to be handled. We introduce a new case for building reactive functions when a block prior to a goto doesnt generate a value; this is the case for the fallthrough of sequence blocks in for loop inits, since the value is not read by anything.We also make it so that we don't DCE declarations of variables that are written to in value blocks. If we did DCE such declarations, we would then later convert the reassignment to a const declaration--but declarations in value blocks are banned.