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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat: simplify simple conditionals for brillig #7205
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: simplify simple conditionals for brillig #7205
Changes from 31 commits
6794e3e
110698d
d341815
f3d3fea
1757bc3
d3a918e
6946684
39bc8e6
da8a8a1
1c91dba
f24aac7
b773bd2
77763b6
56ef385
9fcf348
b79d1da
b86be54
06d26db
7a5ed52
90aa52c
8c7f5b9
b38e806
e4b86df
e10a64b
1db3d61
bc830dc
6cca458
2f781f3
b1d908a
afe6213
88faf2c
f5b4076
0f40510
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.
I'd consider putting an
if
in there as well. PerhapsMOV_IF
likeJUMP_IF
?Check warning on line 185 in compiler/noirc_evaluator/src/brillig/brillig_ir/debug_show.rs
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.
We want to check
contains_key
for the value here?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.
No, if the two mapping both map to the same value, I think that's fine.
However, if the value of one is the key of the other, then one mapping is somehow overwriting what the other mapping is doing, and I disallow this. Especially because mappings are constructed in reverse order, so a mapping overwriting the 'next one' is probably bad.