Skip to content

[opt-remark] Have OptEmitter store a SILFunction instead of a SILModule. #33110

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

Conversation

gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor

In all of these cases, we already had a SILFunction and were just grabbing its
SILModule instead of passing it in. So this is just an NFC change.

The reason why I am doing this is so that I can force emit opt-remarks on
functions with the semantics attribute "optremark", so I need to be able to
access the SILFunction in the optimization remark infrastructure.

In all of these cases, we already had a SILFunction and were just grabbing its
SILModule instead of passing it in. So this is just an NFC change.

The reason why I am doing this is so that I can force emit opt-remarks on
functions with the semantics attribute "optremark", so I need to be able to
access the SILFunction in the optimization remark infrastructure.
@gottesmm gottesmm requested a review from francisvm July 25, 2020 00:12
@gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci smoke test

@gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci clean smoke test OS X platform

@gottesmm gottesmm merged commit a2d648f into swiftlang:master Jul 25, 2020
@gottesmm gottesmm deleted the pr-77446eb33ecf2418d744f8a4ad10e43e82c9ff2c branch July 25, 2020 03:56
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.

1 participant