[5.7] IRGen: Use the current function name for the swift_suspend_point thunk #42481
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
…t thunk This is an incremental improvement of the debug info at a (hop_to_executor) suspend site. Before this patch the debug info at the call site would use the `__swift_suspend_point` function name as the current function after coro lowering has inlined the thunk. The proper fix is to rewire the debug info such that the thunk name is never mentioned rather the current function that suspend site sits in is used. Until I have figured out how to do that using the current function name instead of `__swift_suspend_point` for the thunk is an incremental improvement in the debug information consumers can observe. rdar://90859530 This is the same approach as we took for the await suspend points (vs. hop to executor in this patch) in the PR swiftlang#41645. Risk is very low, only a function name of a function that is guaranteed to be inlined during coroutine splitting is changed.
|
@swift-ci Please test |
aschwaighofer
added a commit
to aschwaighofer/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2022
…pend_point thunk This is an incremental improvement of the debug info at a (hop_to_executor) suspend site. Before this patch the debug info at the call site would use the `__swift_suspend_point` function name as the current function after coro lowering has inlined the thunk. The proper fix is to rewire the debug info such that the thunk name is never mentioned rather the current function that suspend site sits in is used. Until I have figured out how to do that using the current function name instead of `__swift_suspend_point` for the thunk is an incremental improvement in the debug information consumers can observe. rdar://90859530 This is the same approach as we took for the await suspend points (vs. hop to executor in this patch) in the PR swiftlang#41645. Risk is very low, only a function name of a function that is guaranteed to be inlined during coroutine splitting is changed. Matching `main` PR: swiftlang#42454 Matching `release/5.7` PR: swiftlang#42481
tbkka
approved these changes
Apr 20, 2022
|
@swift-ci Please test |
AnthonyLatsis
added
🍒 release cherry pick
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.
This is an incremental improvement of the debug info at a
(hop_to_executor) suspend site.
Before this patch the debug info at the call site would use the
__swift_suspend_pointfunction name as the current function aftercoro lowering has inlined the thunk.
The proper fix is to rewire the debug info such that the thunk name is
never mentioned rather the current function that suspend site sits in is
used.
Until I have figured out how to do that using the current function name
instead of
__swift_suspend_pointfor the thunk is an incrementalimprovement in the debug information consumers can observe.
rdar://90859530
This is the same approach as we took for the await suspend points (vs.
hop to executor in this patch) in the PR #41645.
Risk is very low, only a function name of a function that is guaranteed
to be inlined during coroutine splitting is changed.
Matching
mainPR: #42454