I’ll add an assert and get rid of the conditional then. Thank you Adrian and Joe, for the great feedbacks!
- Daniel > On Jun 9, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 9, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 8, 2016, at 7:38 PM, Daniel Duan via swift-dev >>>>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I'm resuming work on removing the SILGen for the inout shadow copy. Making >>>>> this change involes quite a bit of tests updates. I'd love some one to >>>>> review >>>>> this commit in SILGenProlog.cpp before I dive back into the deep end: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/dduan/swift/commit/e56d73c065bec7bdde7c0ffee42b808d1bb52d74 >>>>> >>>>> (It's +5, -12, a small patch). >>>>> >>>>> Is this on the right track? >>>> >>>> The variable binding looks great. We might need to coordinate with the >>>> debugger to ensure we still emit debug info the way lldb expects it; >>>> cc'ing Adrian and Enrico. >>>> >>>> -Joe >>> >>> The diff looks generally reasonable to me. You will probably have to update >>> a bunch of debug info testcases along with this change. >>> >>> You can run the LLDB test suite with by running >>> $ build-script -r -l -t -- --skip-test-cmark --skip-test-swift >>> --lldb-test-with-curses --lldb-use-system-debugserver >>> >>> Since I missed the original discussion, I’m curious about the context >>> though: under what circumstances is an inout argument be passed by value >>> and can it ever be a let binding? >> >> An inout can never be a 'let' binding. > > In that case, the we might want to assert that !vd->isLet() in the patch. > >> It's always passed by-reference, but previously, we would inject a shadow >> copy with writeback on the callee side to allow captures to reference the >> inout without extending the original argument's lifetime. We no longer allow >> this, so inouts are always simply passed by reference now. > > And does this imply that it is always an address? If so, we might want to > assert this and get rid of the else branch handling the value. > > thanks, > adrian
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
