crates/codegen/src/ir.rs (1)

1584-1597: 📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🔵 Trivial | 💤 Low value

Consider consolidating the two identical opposite-direction arms.

The Some(PseudoOpcode::JumpIfTrue) if opcode_is_false and Some(PseudoOpcode::JumpIfFalse) if !opcode_is_false arms have byte-for-byte identical bodies; only the pattern/guard pair differs. They can be folded into a single arm (e.g. guarding on a precomputed "target is opposite-direction" bool) to avoid the duplicated block.

The current behavior matches CPython and the new tests, so this is purely a dedup nit.

As per coding guidelines: "When branches differ only in a value but share common logic, extract the differing value first, then call the common logic once to avoid duplicate code."

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.

In `@crates/codegen/src/ir.rs` around lines 1584 - 1597, Consolidate the
duplicated JumpIfTrue/JumpIfFalse handling in the instruction rewrite logic
inside the relevant match in ir.rs: both arms in the opcode adjustment path have
identical bodies, so factor the shared target-updating logic into one branch and
guard it with a precomputed “opposite direction” condition. Use the existing
symbols PseudoOpcode, opcode_is_false, inst.target, and
self[block_idx].instructions[i].target to locate the code, and keep the same
behavior while removing the repeated block.

Source: Coding guidelines