Mangle the protocol requirement array #15558
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
We have RelativeDirectPointer and RelativeIndirectablePointer. The latter cannot be used with function pointers because it assumes the payload is 2-byte aligned and uses the least significant bit to dynamically distinguish a direct pointer from an indirect pointer. For resilient conformances, we want to use protocol dispatch thunks as keys in the witness table template. They're not 2 byte aligned, and they're always defined in a different image, so we need an unconditional indirect relative pointer template.
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
Looks good to me. |
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test Linux |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Just a couple of minor bits from protocol resilience. We can't have relative references from symbols without names or symbols with unnamed_addr, because it breaks the REPL. Of course right now you cannot define resilient protocols in the REPL. But it's a bit of future-proofing.