-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.5k
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
gh-94808: Remove unused code in _make_posargs #119227
Conversation
Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry. Add one using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool. If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the |
The current code covers all combinations of plain_names & names_with_default being NULL and non-NULL. Removing one of the cases breaks that, leaving no hint about why this would fall through to the empty // With the current grammar, we never get here.
// When that changes, remove the assert, and test thoroughly.
assert(0);
*posargs = plain_names; |
I agree, that's better. Should I resubmit? |
4b8f4ac
to
4a15e0a
Compare
This looks good to me, thanks! |
Thanks! I meant to wrap this up over the weekend, but forgot. I will do it this week. |
`names_with_default` is never `NULL`, even if there are no names with defaults. In that case it points to a structure with `size` zero. Rather than eliminating the branch, we leave it behind with an `assert(0)` in case a future change to the grammar exercises the branch.
@encukou I split the changes into two commits, one to improve coverage and the other to reorganize the if-else structure. |
Thanks! For the future: please avoid force-pushing to CPython -- when reviewed commits disappear, the review needs to be restarted. (In this commit it's not a problem, as it's just a few lines.) |
Thanks again for your help and guidance through the whole process. |
…GH-119227) * Reorganize four-way if-elsif-elsif-elsif as nested if-elses * Mark unused branch in _make_posargs `names_with_default` is never `NULL`, even if there are no names with defaults. In that case it points to a structure with `size` zero. Rather than eliminating the branch, we leave it behind with an `assert(0)` in case a future change to the grammar exercises the branch.
…GH-119227) * Reorganize four-way if-elsif-elsif-elsif as nested if-elses * Mark unused branch in _make_posargs `names_with_default` is never `NULL`, even if there are no names with defaults. In that case it points to a structure with `size` zero. Rather than eliminating the branch, we leave it behind with an `assert(0)` in case a future change to the grammar exercises the branch.
…GH-119227) * Reorganize four-way if-elsif-elsif-elsif as nested if-elses * Mark unused branch in _make_posargs `names_with_default` is never `NULL`, even if there are no names with defaults. In that case it points to a structure with `size` zero. Rather than eliminating the branch, we leave it behind with an `assert(0)` in case a future change to the grammar exercises the branch.
The coverage report indicates that this branch is never exercised. That appears to be because it is unused code. When I couldn't produce a test case that exercised it, I removed the branch, then checked that the complete test suite still passed.
The branch is only run when
names_with_default
is null. It appears that when there are no names with defaults,names_with_defaults
will point to a structure that has.size
zero.It's possible that a future implementation change might alter that, requiring the branch to be put back, but I believe the existing tests would detect if that happened.