Reimplement destroy as an interface #5678
Open
+8,622
−2,151
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
|
It looks like #5677 has been merged, so could you rebase on trunk? My workflow for large PRs relies pretty heavily on the "viewed" button, which only seems to appear when displaying changes from all commits. |
Done. |
|
ping? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This changes
Destroyto use an interface for its implementation.Note that this change includes a lot of test updates. Even when
Destroyis a no-op, it still causes code generation as part of determining that.Originally I was trying to use ranges to cut down the scope of this, and to a degree I think they have. But a flipside here is that cases where no destructors should be generated -- particularly globals -- would be needed to completely remove destructor calls. Even for ranges, the range can often include the destructor placement. So I've shifted frame-of-thought a little: accept a bunch of destructor churn, because destructors are needed and will be prevalent. The verbosity is a feature of the design to make desugaring apparent in IR, not a bug.