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

[SR-904] Allocate closure context for closures passed @noescape on the stack #43516

Closed
aschwaighofer opened this issue Mar 9, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@aschwaighofer
Copy link
Member

aschwaighofer commented Mar 9, 2016

Previous ID SR-904
Radar None
Original Reporter @aschwaighofer
Type Improvement
Status Resolved
Resolution Done
Additional Detail from JIRA
Votes 3
Component/s Compiler
Labels Improvement
Assignee @aschwaighofer
Priority Medium

md5: 2c3144efb6e8219c5cff33bb3da54d1b

is duplicated by:

  • SR-7286 non-escaping closures aren't stack allocated

Issue Description:

Closures only passed as @NoEscape arguments should not be allocated on the heap.

@slavapestov
Copy link
Member

slavapestov commented Aug 8, 2017

aschwaighofer@apple.com (JIRA User) Is there a radar for this too?

@aschwaighofer
Copy link
Member Author

aschwaighofer commented Aug 8, 2017

There is the related ABI ticket: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-5441.

There is <rdar://problem/19543674>

There is also <rdar://problem/26650253> and https://github.com/aschwaighofer/swift/tree/closure_stack_promo_prototype which is an abandoned (it took a pure SIL optimization approach).

@aschwaighofer
Copy link
Member Author

aschwaighofer commented Jan 18, 2019

Fixed by #21933

@aschwaighofer
Copy link
Member Author

aschwaighofer commented Jan 18, 2019

I have filed https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-9701 for objective-c block arguments

@weissi
Copy link
Member

weissi commented Jan 18, 2019

Yaay, that’s awesome!! Thank you

@swift-ci swift-ci transferred this issue from apple/swift-issues Apr 25, 2022
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants