Add Expr support to the control-flow builders
#10400
Merged
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
jakelishman
added
Changelog: New Feature
|
One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5602359644
💛 - Coveralls |
jakelishman
force-pushed
the
expr/control-flow-builders
branch
from
487a0f7
to
cf2170b
Compare
This is generally relatively straightforwards; anywhere where we examine the resources used by an operation, we need to update to account for classical resources potentially being tied up in `ControlFlowOp` fields in `Expr` nodes as well. This also has the side effect of fixing a bug where a nested `SwitchCaseOp.target` wasn't considered in the scope building for _all_ control-flow operations, which could incorrectly cause some registers to be missed in outer scopes.
jakelishman
force-pushed
the
expr/control-flow-builders
branch
from
cf2170b
to
a650dae
Compare
|
Now rebased over |
| *, | ||
| in_loop: bool, | ||
| label: Optional[str] = None, | ||
| ): | ||
| self.circuit = circuit | ||
| self.target = target | ||
| self._target = target | ||
| if isinstance(target, Clbit): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really a comment to be addressed in this PR, but did we consider just always lifting the conditions and targets to Expr? I suppose that'd be a breaking change since then self.{target,condition} would be an Expr rather than what the user provided. But it'd at least remove this series of checks which we currently require all over the place!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did consider it, but wanted to minimise potential API breakage for the old paths, since the intent is likely to deprecate/remove the bare form.
| expected = QuantumCircuit(qr, clbits, cr1, cr2, cr3, cr4) | ||
| expected.for_loop(range(3), None, for_body, [qr[0]], clbits + list(cr1)) | ||
|
|
||
| self.assertEqual(canonicalize_control_flow(test), canonicalize_control_flow(expected)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we still need the canonicalize_control_flow-ing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably not, but I didn't want to make that change in the same PR, since there's a whole bunch of places where it could be removed.
kevinhartman
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2023
to24toro
pushed a commit
to to24toro/qiskit-terra
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 3, 2023
* Add `Expr` support to the control-flow builders This is generally relatively straightforwards; anywhere where we examine the resources used by an operation, we need to update to account for classical resources potentially being tied up in `ControlFlowOp` fields in `Expr` nodes as well. This also has the side effect of fixing a bug where a nested `SwitchCaseOp.target` wasn't considered in the scope building for _all_ control-flow operations, which could incorrectly cause some registers to be missed in outer scopes. * Remove out-of-date comment
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.
Summary
This is generally relatively straightforwards; anywhere where we examine the resources used by an operation, we need to update to account for classical resources potentially being tied up in
ControlFlowOpfields inExprnodes as well.This also has the side effect of fixing a bug where a nested
SwitchCaseOp.targetwasn't considered in the scope building for all control-flow operations, which could incorrectly cause some registers to be missed in outer scopes.Details and comments
Fix #10398.
Close #10228.
Depends on #10367.
Additional feature changelog in #10331.