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

[Orc] Move SymbolStringPool from EPC to ExecutionSession (NFC) #85056

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

weliveindetail
Copy link
Contributor

ExecutorProcessControl's interface is supposed to be limited, but over time it accumulated some weight. This is a first attempt to sort things out. Moving ownership of the SymbolStringPool from ExecutorProcessControl to ExecutionSession has no functional impact. It only changes the interface.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 13, 2024

✅ With the latest revision this PR passed the C/C++ code formatter.

@@ -1453,7 +1453,8 @@ class ExecutionSession {

/// Construct an ExecutionSession with the given ExecutorProcessControl
/// object.
ExecutionSession(std::unique_ptr<ExecutorProcessControl> EPC);
ExecutionSession(std::unique_ptr<ExecutorProcessControl> EPC,
std::shared_ptr<SymbolStringPool> SSP = nullptr);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we keep the default value here, we don't need the second patch. It would reduce the PR size significantly: 23a9ec6

I am not sure though, do we want default values in the public headers?

@weliveindetail
Copy link
Contributor Author

Test failures from pre-merge checks are unrelated

@weliveindetail
Copy link
Contributor Author

From the upstream code-base's point of view this patch makes total sense. For downstream users, the issue is that we don't have an extension point for ExecutionSession. Keeping it in ExecutorProcessControl allows for better customization. I guess it's one of the things that should be considered in a broader design overhaul at some point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

1 participant