Skip to content

Increase the amount of memory we allow the constraint solver to use. #4054

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 1 commit into from
Aug 6, 2016
Merged

Increase the amount of memory we allow the constraint solver to use. #4054

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 6, 2016

Conversation

rudkx
Copy link
Contributor

@rudkx rudkx commented Aug 5, 2016

What's in this pull request?

Cherry pick a change from master to swift-3.0-branch to increase the amount of memory we allow the constraint solver use.


Before merging this pull request to apple/swift repository:

  • Test pull request on Swift continuous integration.

Triggering Swift CI

The swift-ci is triggered by writing a comment on this PR addressed to the GitHub user @swift-ci. Different tests will run depending on the specific comment that you use. The currently available comments are:

Smoke Testing

Platform Comment
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please smoke test
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please smoke test and merge
OS X platform @swift-ci Please smoke test OS X platform
Linux platform @swift-ci Please smoke test Linux platform

A smoke test on macOS does the following:

  1. Builds the compiler incrementally.
  2. Builds the standard library only for macOS. Simulator standard libraries and
    device standard libraries are not built.
  3. lldb is not built.
  4. The test and validation-test targets are run only for macOS. The optimized
    version of these tests are not run.

A smoke test on Linux does the following:

  1. Builds the compiler incrementally.
  2. Builds the standard library incrementally.
  3. lldb is built incrementally.
  4. The swift test and validation-test targets are run. The optimized version of these
    tests are not run.
  5. lldb is tested.

Validation Testing

Platform Comment
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please test
All supported platforms @swift-ci Please test and merge
OS X platform @swift-ci Please test OS X platform
OS X platform @swift-ci Please benchmark
Linux platform @swift-ci Please test Linux platform

Lint Testing

Language Comment
Python @swift-ci Please Python lint

Note: Only members of the Apple organization can trigger swift-ci.

Various changes throughout the compiler and libraries appear to have
resulted in an increase in memory usage in the constraint solver since
Swift 2.2.

This is a stop-gap measure to allow more expressions to compile while
the expression type checker is being improved.

We've seen several cases where even a modest increase allows things that
compiled with Swift 2.2 to continue to compile (albeit with generally
longer compile times).

(cherry picked from commit 8886f77)

Various changes throughout the compiler and libraries appear to have
resulted in an increase in memory usage in the constraint solver since
Swift 2.2.

This is a stop-gap measure to allow more expressions to compile while
the expression type checker is being improved.

We've seen several cases where even a modest increase allows things that
compiled with Swift 2.2 to continue to compile (albeit with generally
longer compile times).

(cherry picked from commit 8886f77)
@rudkx rudkx self-assigned this Aug 5, 2016
@rudkx
Copy link
Contributor Author

rudkx commented Aug 5, 2016

@swift-ci Test.

@rudkx
Copy link
Contributor Author

rudkx commented Aug 5, 2016

@DougGregor Can you review for swift-3.0-branch?

@rudkx rudkx added this to the Swift 3.0 milestone Aug 5, 2016
@DougGregor
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@rudkx
Copy link
Contributor Author

rudkx commented Aug 5, 2016

Looks like we hit the same Linux builder issue as #4053 (comment).

@tkremenek tkremenek merged commit 9cefeab into swiftlang:swift-3.0-branch Aug 6, 2016
@rudkx rudkx deleted the increase-solver-memory branch August 7, 2016 22:33
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.

3 participants