-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 808
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
Use decision trees for code generation on the js target #4382
Draft
giacomocavalieri
wants to merge
25
commits into
gleam-lang:main
Choose a base branch
from
giacomocavalieri:fix-3969
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+3,087
−2,448
Conversation
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
8fbd187
to
80d3407
Compare
Ok(SizedBitArraySegmentDetails { size, size_value }) | ||
} | ||
|
||
pub(crate) fn guard(&mut self, guard: &'a TypedClauseGuard) -> Output<'a> { |
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.
All the code here up to line ~1900 is basically moved as-is from the pattern module where it was previously
Please give PRs titles, just a number means folks have to look them up to know what this is |
Oops my mistake! |
include compiled case in result
The decision tree would have two different kinds of switches, implementing code generation I went over this code again and realised we could represent it using a single variant for both infinite and exhaustive switches: at the end of the day the both still need a "fallback" branch that will match no matter what. So I thought it would make more sense to reconcile the two things in a single variant.
With this change code generation for pattern variables is smarter and avoids doing lots of repeated work always recomputing the value of a pattern variable. Instead, a pattern variable is now bound in scope as soon as a check needs it.
I think a regular match is easier to read than the `!matches!(...)` macro
78a54d0
to
7daffc0
Compare
This was referenced Mar 25, 2025
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.
This PR closes #3969 and closes #4221
This is still a WIP as I haven't taken care of bit array patterns yet, but it's ready for everything else if anyone fancies giving this a look in the meantime.
What's missing: