[Serialization] Handle XREFs to private types #14352
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
@gottesmm, @atrick, in case you're curious. This level of "fix" isn't that intrusive, but… @slavapestov is going to hate this. @swift-ci Please test |
|
@DougGregor review ping (since it is a 4.1 regression of sorts) |
jrose-apple
force-pushed
the
xrefprehensible
branch
from
e94b933
to
841c27a
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
DougGregor
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2018
| XRefTypePathPieceLayout::readRecord(scratch, IID, privateDiscriminator, | ||
| onlyInNominal); | ||
| if (privateDiscriminator) | ||
| goto giveUpFastPath; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess I could have written a do-while-false loop, but I think that would have been less self-documenting.
We can encounter these when the compiler modifies an inlinable function to break apart a struct and the struct uses a private type for one of its fields. It's questionable whether we /should/ handle this, but meanwhile this /is/ a non-intrusive fix that preserves the performance of non-resilient libraries. (That is, it appears this worked in Swift 4.0, though perhaps not all of the same optimizations kicked in.) https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-6874
jrose-apple
force-pushed
the
xrefprehensible
branch
from
841c27a
to
b9d3c6e
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
jrose-apple
added a commit
to jrose-apple/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2018
We can encounter these when the compiler modifies an inlinable function to break apart a struct and the struct uses a private type for one of its fields. It's questionable whether we /should/ handle this, but meanwhile this /is/ a non-intrusive fix that preserves the performance of non-resilient libraries. (That is, it appears this worked in Swift 4.0, though perhaps not all of the same optimizations kicked in.) https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-6874 (cherry picked from commit af67204)
jrose-apple
added a commit
to jrose-apple/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2018
We can encounter these when the compiler modifies an inlinable function to break apart a struct and the struct uses a private type for one of its fields. It's questionable whether we /should/ handle this, but meanwhile this /is/ a non-intrusive fix that preserves the performance of non-resilient libraries. (That is, it appears this worked in Swift 4.0, though perhaps not all of the same optimizations kicked in.) https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-6874 (cherry picked from commit af67204)
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.
We can encounter these when the compiler modifies an inlinable function to break apart a struct and the struct uses a private type for one of its fields. It's questionable whether we should handle this, but meanwhile this is a non-intrusive fix that preserves the performance of non-resilient libraries.
(That is, it appears this worked in Swift 4.0, though perhaps not all of the same optimizations kicked in.)
SR-6874 / rdar://problem/37072260