Skip to content
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

Copy-in rather than copy-out in transpiler (backport #11176) #11182

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 2, 2023

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Nov 2, 2023

This is an automatic backport of pull request #11176 done by Mergify.


Mergify commands and options

More conditions and actions can be found in the documentation.

You can also trigger Mergify actions by commenting on this pull request:

  • @Mergifyio refresh will re-evaluate the rules
  • @Mergifyio rebase will rebase this PR on its base branch
  • @Mergifyio update will merge the base branch into this PR
  • @Mergifyio backport <destination> will backport this PR on <destination> branch

Additionally, on Mergify dashboard you can:

  • look at your merge queues
  • generate the Mergify configuration with the config editor.

Finally, you can contact us on https://mergify.com

This shifts the deepcopy of instructions in the transpiler to be at the
input stage, rather than the output stage.  This more closely matches
our behaviour before the passmanager refactoring, but also has a
performance benefit for circuits that require significant routing and is
typically safer for transpiler passes.  Output circuits are typically
larger than input ones, so copy-in means less copying, and also makes
the ownership model for tranpsiler passes clearer: a pass can assume the
input operations are entirely owned by the circuit it receives, and that
a pass must output a circuit that entirely owns its operations.

(cherry picked from commit eca3478)
@mergify mergify bot requested a review from a team as a code owner November 2, 2023 18:23
@qiskit-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for opening a new pull request.

Before your PR can be merged it will first need to pass continuous integration tests and be reviewed. Sometimes the review process can be slow, so please be patient.

While you're waiting, please feel free to review other open PRs. While only a subset of people are authorized to approve pull requests for merging, everyone is encouraged to review open pull requests. Doing reviews helps reduce the burden on the core team and helps make the project's code better for everyone.

One or more of the the following people are requested to review this:

  • @Qiskit/terra-core

@github-actions github-actions bot added Changelog: None Do not include in changelog mod: transpiler Issues and PRs related to Transpiler labels Nov 2, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the 0.45.0 milestone Nov 2, 2023
@jakelishman jakelishman enabled auto-merge November 2, 2023 18:24
@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 6736714879

  • 2 of 2 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 86.919%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
crates/qasm2/src/lex.rs 1 92.17%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 6725488860: 0.02%
Covered Lines: 73889
Relevant Lines: 85009

💛 - Coveralls

@jakelishman jakelishman added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 2, 2023
Merged via the queue into stable/0.45 with commit 88b4c07 Nov 2, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the mergify/bp/stable/0.45/pr-11176 branch November 2, 2023 21:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Changelog: None Do not include in changelog mod: transpiler Issues and PRs related to Transpiler
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants