[6.0] [IRGen] Fix misalignment of conditional invertible requirement counts #74014
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
[IRGen] Fix misalignment of conditional invertible requirement counts
[Basic] Manually implement popcount when not available
|
@swift-ci please test |
stephentyrone
approved these changes
May 30, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 a cherry pick of #73277 and #73384
Explanation: The conditional invertible protocol set is alone as a 16 bit slot in the generic context, but items here are expected to be 4 bytes large, so some padding needs to accompany this value. If the number of invertible protocols that we're conditional on is even, we can stick a 0 after all of the requirement counts. Also, we were using countBitsUsed to determine how many requirement counts there were, but this is really testing the first bit in [1, 64] that is turned on instead of actually saying how many bits are turned on.
Scope: Compiler
Issue: None.
Original PR: #73277 and #73384
Risk: Very low, nobody is currently using conditional invertible requirements besides the stdlib and we haven't committed to this ABI yet.
Testing: CI
Reviewer: @DougGregor