Skip to content

[silgen] Move ResultPlan from SILGenApply.cpp -> ResultPlan.{h,cpp} #8050

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
Mar 13, 2017

Conversation

gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor

[silgen] Move ResultPlan from SILGenApply.cpp -> ResultPlan.{h,cpp}

ResultPlan and related constructs have already been written in a type erased
fashion. This commit takes advantage of this by moving the details of the code
to ResultPlan.{cpp,h}.

This slims down SILGenApply.cpp in a NFC way and ensures that other code in
SILGenApply can not depend on the details of ResultPlan. Also it is my hope that
this can become the beginning of the merging of the ResultPlan from SILGenApply
and from SILGenPoly. We should only have 1 way in SILGen to build applies and
create apply results.

rdar://29791263

ResultPlan and related constructs have already been written in a type erased
fashion. This commit takes advantage of this by moving the details of the code
to ResultPlan.{cpp,h}.

This slims down SILGenApply.cpp in a NFC way and ensures that other code in
SILGenApply can not depend on the details of ResultPlan. Also it is my hope that
this can become the beginning of the merging of the ResultPlan from SILGenApply
and from SILGenPoly. We should only have 1 way in SILGen to build applies and
create apply results.

rdar://29791263
@gottesmm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please smoke test and merge

@swift-ci swift-ci merged commit 6902900 into swiftlang:master Mar 13, 2017
@gottesmm gottesmm deleted the extract_out_resultplan branch March 13, 2017 18:23
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