Skip to content

Change SIL ref_element_addr getFieldNo() to return a unique index. #34074

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 25, 2020

Conversation

atrick
Copy link
Contributor

@atrick atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

The fix is needed to have a unique AccessStorage object for each property. The AccessPath commits will contain test cases for this functionality.

If you're looking at the diff, only look at the first commit.

I don't have a test case for this bug based on the current code. But
the fix is clearly needed to have a unique AccessStorage object for
each property. The AccessPath commits will contain test cases for this
functionality.
Do I really need to justify this?
@atrick atrick requested a review from jckarter September 25, 2020 05:51
@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

@swift-ci test

@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

@swift-ci test source compatibility

@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

@swift-ci benchmark

@swift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

Performance: -O

Regression OLD NEW DELTA RATIO
FlattenListFlatMap 2626 2913 +10.9% 0.90x (?)
FlattenListLoop 946 1031 +9.0% 0.92x (?)

Code size: -O

Performance: -Osize

Regression OLD NEW DELTA RATIO
NSStringConversion.UTF8 603 661 +9.6% 0.91x (?)
 
Improvement OLD NEW DELTA RATIO
FlattenListLoop 1543 1415 -8.3% 1.09x (?)

Code size: -Osize

Performance: -Onone

Improvement OLD NEW DELTA RATIO
TypeFlood 165 154 -6.7% 1.07x (?)

Code size: -swiftlibs

How to read the data The tables contain differences in performance which are larger than 8% and differences in code size which are larger than 1%.

If you see any unexpected regressions, you should consider fixing the
regressions before you merge the PR.

Noise: Sometimes the performance results (not code size!) contain false
alarms. Unexpected regressions which are marked with '(?)' are probably noise.
If you see regressions which you cannot explain you can try to run the
benchmarks again. If regressions still show up, please consult with the
performance team (@eeckstein).

Hardware Overview
  Model Name: Mac mini
  Model Identifier: Macmini8,1
  Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Core i7
  Processor Speed: 3.2 GHz
  Number of Processors: 1
  Total Number of Cores: 6
  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
  L3 Cache: 12 MB
  Memory: 64 GB

@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

I can't reproduce the SCK failures.

@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

@swift-ci test source compatibility

@atrick
Copy link
Contributor Author

atrick commented Sep 25, 2020

SCK failures appear unrelated to this PR

@atrick atrick merged commit ea0da3f into swiftlang:main Sep 25, 2020
@atrick atrick deleted the make-fieldidx-unique branch November 9, 2020 17:15
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