fix: typechecking for folding of literal ops #3201
Closed
+161
−13
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
Codecov Report
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3201 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.87% 88.90% +0.03%
==========================================
Files 84 84
Lines 10594 10612 +18
Branches 2211 2220 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 9415 9435 +20
+ Misses 770 769 -1
+ Partials 409 408 -1
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
…constant_folding
|
Note: to change to |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What I did
Fix #2830, and supersedes #2832. Hacky because it performs some typechecking during AST folding, but it should be a better option than typechecking in AST construction (original approach in 2832), and definitely a lot simpler than reordering AST folding after semantics validation (subsequent approach in 2832), which seems to add complexity in other areas too.
Not too sure if it works - will check CI when it's completedCI passes so I think this could work.How I did it
Check for the types of the operands when folding literal ops. If there are two types, check for type mismatch and raise an error. Otherwise, if there is at least one type and the node is a
BinOp, set that as the type of the folded node, which can then be used for typechecking in the semantics stage.How to verify it
See tests.
Commit message
Description for the changelog
Fix typechecking for literal ops folding.
Cute Animal Picture