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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should the Force instruction always keep the 'missing arg' in its type? #1273

Open
skrynski opened this issue Mar 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Should the Force instruction always keep the 'missing arg' in its type? #1273

skrynski opened this issue Mar 12, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement pir to be solved in the compiler, the PIR, the optimizer (/compiler)

Comments

@skrynski
Copy link
Collaborator

skrynski commented Mar 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

f <- function(x) x
rir.compile(f)
pir.compile(f)

Missing_arg should trigger an error iif it is the result of symbol evaluation.

Image shows Early PIR output .
image

Below is PIR After optimizations, notice ChkMissing is introduced.
image

In both cases, Force has type val?. I think it should be just val.
@skrynski skrynski added enhancement pir to be solved in the compiler, the PIR, the optimizer (/compiler) labels Mar 12, 2024
@skrynski skrynski changed the title Should the Force instruction always keep the missing type in its type? Should the Force instruction always keep the 'missing arg' in its type? Mar 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement pir to be solved in the compiler, the PIR, the optimizer (/compiler)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@skrynski