-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.2k
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
Enable the CopyPropagation pass. #35242
Conversation
@swift-ci test |
@swift-ci benchmark |
@swift-ci test source compatibility |
Performance: -O
Code size: -O
Performance: -Osize
Code size: -Osize
Performance: -Onone
Code size: -swiftlibs
How to read the dataThe tables contain differences in performance which are larger than 8% and differences in code size which are larger than 1%.If you see any unexpected regressions, you should consider fixing the Noise: Sometimes the performance results (not code size!) contain false Hardware Overview
|
Build failed |
Build failed |
This passed SCK release testing. ReactiveCocoa fails on main! This passed regular CI testing. The only lit failure is an AutoDiff check that appeared after rebasing. |
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// | ||
/// | ||
/// Canonicalize the copies and destroys of a single owned or guaranteed OSSA | ||
/// value. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be very helpful to explain what "canonicalize" means here, ideally with some SIL examples.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I moved the extensive comments into the header file.
da92545
to
3a06e75
Compare
@swift-ci test |
@swift-ci test source compatibility |
@swift-ci benchmark |
Build failed before running benchmark. |
Build failed |
Build failed |
@swift-ci benchmark |
The SCK ReactiveCocoa failure is a known issue that's been fixed independently. |
@swift-ci test |
Performance: -O
Code size: -O
Performance: -Osize
Code size: -Osize
Performance: -Onone
Code size: -swiftlibs
How to read the dataThe tables contain differences in performance which are larger than 8% and differences in code size which are larger than 1%.If you see any unexpected regressions, you should consider fixing the Noise: Sometimes the performance results (not code size!) contain false Hardware Overview
|
Build failed |
Build failed |
@swift-ci test |
Build failed |
Build failed |
@swift-ci test |
Build failed |
Build failed |
@swift-ci test |
@swift-ci test |
@swift-ci test source compatibility |
@swift-ci benchmark |
Performance: -O
Code size: -O
Performance: -Osize
Code size: -Osize
Performance: -Onone
Code size: -swiftlibs
How to read the dataThe tables contain differences in performance which are larger than 8% and differences in code size which are larger than 1%.If you see any unexpected regressions, you should consider fixing the Noise: Sometimes the performance results (not code size!) contain false Hardware Overview
|
For now simply run the pass before SemanticARCOpts. This will probably be called as a utility from within SemanticARCOpts so it can be iteratively applied after other ARC-related transformations.
@swift-ci test |
For now simply run the pass before SemanticARCOpts. This will probably
be called as a utility from within SemanticARCOpts so it can be
iteratively applied after other ARC-related transformations.
This is rebased on top of the CanonicalOSSA utility:
#35241
And depends on a _StringObject.init fix:
#35243