avoid `Core.Box` in the package by KristofferC · Pull Request #161 · JuliaLang/Distributed.jl

KristofferC · 2026-01-05T13:47:19Z

Fixes the Distributed part of JuliaLang/julia#60479, namely:

var	func	sig	location
`x`	`#remotecall_pool#130`	`Tuple{Distributed.var"##remotecall_pool#130", Base.Pairs{Symbol, V, Nothing, NT} where {V, NT<:NamedTuple}, typeof(Distributed.remotecall_pool), typeof(Distributed.remotecall), Any, Distributed.AbstractWorkerPool, Vararg{Any}}`	`/home/kc/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.14/Distributed/src/workerpool.jl:140`
`x`	`#remotecall_pool#154`	`Tuple{Distributed.var"##remotecall_pool#154", Base.Pairs{Symbol, V, Nothing, NT} where {V, NT<:NamedTuple}, typeof(Distributed.remotecall_pool), typeof(Distributed.remotecall), Any, Distributed.CachingPool, Vararg{Any}}`	`/home/kc/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.14/Distributed/src/workerpool.jl:407`
`sock`	`#start_worker#24`	`Tuple{Distributed.var"##start_worker#24", Bool, Bool, typeof(Distributed.start_worker), IO, AbstractString}`	`/home/kc/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.14/Distributed/src/cluster.jl:237`
`w`	`create_worker`	`Tuple{typeof(Distributed.create_worker), Any, Any}`	`/home/kc/julia/usr/share/julia/stdlib/v1.14/Distributed/src/cluster.jl:601`

I couldn't run the tests locally because I immidiately hit:

Test Failed at /home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/test/distributed_exec.jl:10
  Expression: startswith(pathof(Distributed), sharedir)
   Evaluated: startswith("/home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/src/Distributed.jl", "/home/kc/.julia/juliaup/julia-nightly/share")
ERROR: LoadError: There was an error during testing
in expression starting at /home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/test/distributed_exec.jl:7
Test Failed at /home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/test/runtests.jl:19
  Expression: success(pipeline(cmd; stdout = stdout, stderr = stderr)) && ccall(:jl_running_on_valgrind, Cint, ()) == 0
     Context: cmd = `/home/kc/.julia/juliaup/julia-nightly/bin/julia -C native -J/home/kc/.julia/juliaup/julia-nightly/lib/julia/sys.so -g1 --color=yes --startup-file=no --check-bounds=yes --startup-file=no --depwarn=error /home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/test/distributed_exec.jl`
ERROR: LoadError: There was an error during testing
in expression starting at /home/kc/JuliaPkgs/Distributed.jl/test/runtests.jl:18
ERROR: Package Distributed errored during testing

codecov · 2026-01-05T13:55:12Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.41%. Comparing base (a6195c0) to head (9762351).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #161      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.34%   79.41%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines        1951     1953       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         1548     1551       +3     
+ Misses        403      402       -1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

KristofferC · 2026-01-07T11:49:35Z

cc @JamesWrigley, @MilesCranmer

MilesCranmer · 2026-01-07T13:36:37Z

        (port, sock) = listenany(interface, UInt16(port_hint))
        LPROC.bind_port = port
+        sock


Suggested change

(port, sock) = listenany(interface, UInt16(port_hint))

LPROC.bind_port = port

sock

let (port, sock) = listenany(interface, UInt16(port_hint))

LPROC.bind_port = port

sock

end

but might not be needed

MilesCranmer · 2026-01-07T13:38:12Z

+    let sock_local = sock
+        errormonitor(@async while isopen(sock_local)
+            client = accept(sock_local)
+            process_messages(client, client, true)
+        end)
    end


Suggested change

let sock_local = sock

errormonitor(@async while isopen(sock_local)

client = accept(sock_local)

process_messages(client, client, true)

end)

end

let sock = sock

errormonitor(@async while isopen(sock)

client = accept(sock)

process_messages(client, client, true)

end)

end

just for clarity, since it is the same underlying object ultimately

MilesCranmer · 2026-01-07T13:45:06Z

    try
-        (r_s, w_s) = connect(manager, w.id, wconfig)
+        (r_s, w_s) = connect(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)
    catch ex
        try
-            deregister_worker(w.id)
-            kill(manager, w.id, wconfig)
+            deregister_worker(w_stub.id)
+            kill(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)
        finally
            rethrow(ex)
        end
    end


Suggested change

try

(r_s, w_s) = connect(manager, w.id, wconfig)

(r_s, w_s) = connect(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)

catch ex

try

deregister_worker(w.id)

kill(manager, w.id, wconfig)

deregister_worker(w_stub.id)

kill(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)

finally

rethrow(ex)

end

end

r_s, w_s = try

connect(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)

catch ex

try

deregister_worker(w_stub.id)

kill(manager, w_stub.id, wconfig)

finally

rethrow(ex)

end

end

MilesCranmer · 2026-01-07T13:46:05Z

    # initiate a connect. Does not wait for connection completion in case of TCP.
-    w = Worker()
+    w_stub = Worker()
    local r_s, w_s


Suggested change

local r_s, w_s

KristofferC · 2026-01-08T11:51:52Z

Updated

KristofferC · 2026-01-13T12:14:08Z

bump

JamesWrigley · 2026-01-13T15:06:10Z

-    local r_s, w_s
-    try
-        (r_s, w_s) = connect(manager, w.id, wconfig)
+    w_stub = Worker()


For this and the socket case above, would setting the type of the variable also fix the boxing? e.g.:

Suggested change

w_stub = Worker()

w::Worker = Worker()

Out of curiosity, why not?

BTW, in almost every interaction I've had with people giving one word replies (which is quite a lot in the Julia community for some reason) I end up having to ask more clarifying questions and the whole process takes much more time than it would have taken to have written a proper answer in the first place. Spending less time communicating is not more efficient 😅

KristofferC · 2026-02-02T15:33:02Z

At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access.

This is such a useless thing to enable on a repo.

JamesWrigley · 2026-02-02T17:18:20Z

At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access.

This is such a useless thing to enable on a repo.

This has also annoyed me a lot, can you disable it?

JamesWrigley

LGTM!

DilumAluthge · 2026-02-02T17:53:43Z

At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access.

This is such a useless thing to enable on a repo.

This has also annoyed me a lot, can you disable it?

I've disabled that setting

DilumAluthge · 2026-02-20T13:20:57Z

I see that this was approved, but not merged.

@JamesWrigley Can I merge this PR? Or is there more reviewing to do?

JamesWrigley · 2026-02-20T13:22:47Z

I think you can merge it 👍

avoid Core.Box in the package

d8be10f

MilesCranmer reviewed Jan 7, 2026

View reviewed changes

updates

9762351

KristofferC mentioned this pull request Jan 9, 2026

A list of Core.Box in Base and stdlibs JuliaLang/julia#60479

Open

JamesWrigley reviewed Jan 13, 2026

View reviewed changes

JamesWrigley approved these changes Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

DilumAluthge merged commit 3ebddd3 into JuliaLang:master Feb 20, 2026
8 checks passed

DilumAluthge mentioned this pull request Feb 22, 2026

Forwardports from Distributed.jl#master JuliaParallel/DistributedNext.jl#49

Closed

63 tasks

DilumAluthge mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026

Forwardports from Distributed.jl JuliaParallel/DistributedNext.jl#53

Merged

64 tasks

Uh oh!

Conversation

KristofferC commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Jan 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

KristofferC commented Jan 7, 2026

Uh oh!

MilesCranmer Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MilesCranmer Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MilesCranmer Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

MilesCranmer Jan 7, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KristofferC commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

KristofferC commented Jan 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JamesWrigley Jan 13, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KristofferC Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JamesWrigley Feb 2, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

KristofferC commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

JamesWrigley commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

JamesWrigley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DilumAluthge commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

DilumAluthge commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

JamesWrigley commented Feb 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

codecov Bot commented Jan 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading