[CapturePromotion] Preserve DebugInfo when creating project_box. #13802
Conversation
|
@swift-ci please test |
test/SILOptimizer/sr6709.swift
Outdated
| // CHECK: sil hidden @_T04null19captureStackPromoteSiycyF : $@convention(thin) () -> @owned @callee_guaranteed () -> Int { | ||
| // CHECK: bb0: | ||
| // CHECK: %0 = alloc_box ${ var Int }, var, name "x", loc {{.*}}:32:7, scope 3 // users: %19, %7, %1 | ||
| // CHECK: %1 = project_box %0 : ${ var Int }, 0, loc {{.*}}:32:7, scope 3 // users: %9, %6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Leaving the comments in the CHECK lines is probably just asking for trouble. I would remove them.
|
Nice. Just idly curious -- what are the general guidelines when deciding whether to pick SILBuilder or SILBuilderWithScope? Do you only want the former for SIL that isn't meant to be debugged? |
|
You want to use SILBuilder when you are creating new code from scratch. |
|
When you are using SILBuilder you have to make sure to manually set a meaningful SILDebugScope. |
The code was assigning an incorrect lexical scope, which was responsible for an hole (and likely, wrong DI at `-Onone` in some cases). Fixes SR-6709.
|
Addressed Adrian's comments. Thanks! |
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Build failed |
|
Build failed |
|
@dcci can you give a more descriptive name to the test file or even better just add this to the capture promotion test? |
|
@gottesmm I'd prefer to keep this one separate. What about |
Also simplify check lines and rename the test to be more descriptive. Thanks to Adrian and Michael for pointing out.
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Build failed |
|
Build failed |
|
@dcci Why do you want it to be separate? Couldn't you make the capture promotion test correct in this way. Then when people make changes to CapturePromotion, you get more verification for free. |
|
I don't get the "you can't make the test correct in this way". |
|
Another reason to keep this test separate is that it's very sensitive to line informations. |
|
I and Michael chatted about this offline a bit. |
dcci
changed the title
The code was assigning an incorrect lexical scope, which was
responsible for an hole (and likely, wrong DI at
-Ononein somecases).
Fixes SR-6709.