Skip to content

[5.0] [Constraint solver] De-prioritize SIMD operators. #21280

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

DougGregor
Copy link
Member

The new SIMD proposal introduced a number of new operators, the presence of
which causes more "expression too complex" failures. Route around the
problem by de-prioritizing those operators, visiting them only if no
other operator could be chosen. This should limit the type checker
performance cost of said operators to only those expressions that need
them OR that already failed to type-check.

Fixes rdar://problem/46541800.

The new SIMD proposal introduced a number of new operators, the presence of
which causes more "expression too complex" failures. Route around the
problem by de-prioritizing those operators, visiting them only if no
other operator could be chosen. This should limit the type checker
performance cost of said operators to only those expressions that need
them OR that already failed to type-check.

Fixes rdar://problem/46541800.

(cherry picked from commit 88d34a1)
@DougGregor DougGregor requested a review from a team as a code owner December 13, 2018 04:24
@DougGregor
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci please test

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci please test source compatibility

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member Author

Those source-compatibility failures are for the newly-added "line" project, which was triggering an assertion.

@AnnaZaks AnnaZaks merged commit b490a2a into swiftlang:swift-5.0-branch Dec 13, 2018
@DougGregor DougGregor deleted the simd-operator-type-check-perf-hack-5.0 branch December 13, 2018 19:38
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.

2 participants