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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Bug fix in typechecker: fixes #1937 #1948
Bug fix in typechecker: fixes #1937 #1948
Changes from 1 commit
c923254
59cbd08
7d49c2e
d362130
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Having two actions with
@name(".foo")
annotations looks like wrong to me. If the user did this in their original source program, the compiler does not catch it as an error?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.
Does it make sense that the compiler is taking one action, and creating two separate actions from it? Why is that useful?
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.
The code makes sure that each action is used in a single table. For some targets there is no action reuse anyway; if you have the same code you have to implement it twice.
This also opens the opportunity to specialize the action body for each call site. Perhaps this should be a controllable option - whether to duplicate or not. But it's not wrong, in the sense that it preserves the program semantics.
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.
This is not an error, you can have multiple actions with the same name; the control-plane disambiguates them through the tables that invoke them.
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.
These are both invoked by the same table, so no such through-the-table disambiguation is possible here, is 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.
I do not see how this intermediate code can compile, given that action foo_0 above has parameters named x_1 and y_1, not x and y.
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.
This was a bug in the code that emitted P4, internally the names were correct. That's why the programs would compile correctly. I will add a commit to fix this in this PR.