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

[Coroutine][DebugInfo] Remove the memory attributes on coro-async-dec… #7484

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

DianQK
Copy link

@DianQK DianQK commented Sep 17, 2023

Remove memory as discussed in #7168.

(cherry picked from commit 19b664d)

@adrian-prantl @felipepiovezan @drodriguez

…laration.ll (NFC) (llvm#66088)

According to @drodriguez's reminder in
swiftlang#7168 (comment),
`memory` breaks the backport to the apple branch.

And this is irrelevant to that test. Delete to get better a test case.

(cherry picked from commit 19b664d)
@adrian-prantl
Copy link

@swift-ci test

@adrian-prantl
Copy link

@DianQK Does this need to be cherry-picked to swift/release/5.9 and/or swift/release/5.10 and/or stable/20230725?

@DianQK
Copy link
Author

DianQK commented Sep 18, 2023

@DianQK Does this need to be cherry-picked to swift/release/5.9 and/or swift/release/5.10 and/or stable/20230725?

Yes. #7485

@felipepiovezan
Copy link

@swift-ci test

@felipepiovezan
Copy link

@swift-ci test windows

drodriguez referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2023
Type dereferenced fragments are specified by offset and length in bits.
The representation in CodeView is defined in terms of byte offsets.  If
the bit slice overlaps at a byte that is included, we would create
invalid definition ranges.

Consider the following scenario:

~~~
01234567   01234567
---------+---------
 ====  ======
~~~

Here bits 1-4 are marked as defined as well as bits 7-9.  The byte range
for the second portion overlaps and so we would say that bytes 1 and 2
are valid though there is potentially a hole.  There is no way to
represent this in the defined range for the local variable in CodeView.
We simply can drop the fragment definition in such a scenario with the
variables are "optimized out".

Thanks to @rnk and @hjyamauchi for the discussion around this.
@DianQK
Copy link
Author

DianQK commented Dec 28, 2023

Looks like we've moved to stable/20230725. :)

@DianQK DianQK closed this Dec 28, 2023
@DianQK DianQK deleted the stable/20221013 branch December 31, 2023 11:47
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

3 participants