Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

finally we get _opcode, great!

For some reason I can't comment on the thread of #6156 (comment) so answering it here:

Does giving specific numbers to each instruction make it easier to be maintained? I guess so.

Yes! it also makes it easier for writing the helpers of:

• is_valid
• has_arg
• has_const
• has_name
• etc...

but that wouldn't be needed as I intend #6174 to generate those automatically (just like CPython does it)

After #6174, then can we rewrite 63 | 66 to Instruction::Abc as u8 | Instruction::Def as u8 and so on?

Well, yes you could. but I thought that we could have an API that looks similar to this:

// This is inside the `_opcode` module
fn has_arg(opcode: i32) -> bool {
  Instruction::try_from(opcode).map_or(false, |v| !v.is_pseudo() && v.has_arg())
}

where:

• Instruction::try_from
• instruction.is_pseudo()
• instruction.has_arg()

are all auto generated.

I am worrying about the newly introduced magic numbers. I wish it could be quickly resolved in next patch

I'll send a quick patch to resolve it in the next couple of days