> On Oct 12, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Alexis <abeingess...@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> I’m having trouble figuring something out: is all of this contingent on all 
> of the relevant operations being completely inlined into a single function at 
> the SIL level? Could failing to inline a standard library function lead to 
> performance cliffs? I understand this is generally true of inlining and 
> dead-code elimination; but I’m wondering how this affects the abstractions we 
> expose. Can we know that some things will “always” work, even if parts aren’t 
> inlined?

Yes, also these optimizations heavily rely on inlining. I would say that 
originally almost everything is inside a called function, just think of all the 
generated getters/setters. But usually this is not a problem because most of 
the relevant functions are quite small and always inlined anyway.


> 
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Erik Eckstein via swift-dev 
>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> This is a proposal for representing copy-on-write buffers in SIL. Actually 
>> it’s still a draft for a proposal. It also heavily depends on how we move 
>> forward with SIL ownership.
>> <CopyOnWrite.rst>
>> If you have any comments, please let me know.
>> 
>> Erik
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-dev mailing list
>> swift-dev@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

Reply via email to