[stdlib] Apply @_transparent consistently for (U)Int128 #74523
Conversation
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci please benchmark |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
stdlib/public/core/Int128.swift
Outdated
| #elseif _pointerBitWidth(_32) | ||
| UInt(Builtin.trunc_Int64_Int32(_low._value)) | ||
| #else | ||
| UInt(truncatingIfNeeded: _low) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Formally I think the #else branch here should probably hit the default implementation instead, but that requires refactoring this a bit, so I'm ok with this for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah this implementation is technically incorrect for words larger than 64 bits, so I just wrote this as truncating self.
| @inline(__always) | ||
|
|
||
| @available(SwiftStdlib 6.0, *) | ||
| @_transparent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not certain that we want these to be @_transparent. These are potentially pretty heavyweight operations to drop into the caller (though we might reap benefits in the case of constant divisors).
|
@stephentyrone how do we feel about making |
|
It's a little bit weird since we don't have them for any other integer types, but other than that I'm OK with it. |
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci please benchmark |
Update UInt128.swift
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Do you also want to |
|
@swift-ci test WebAssembly |
|
Sure! |
[stdlib] Apply @_transparent consistently for (U)Int128
3 participants
Also adds a concrete implementation of
_lowWordfor bothInt128andUInt128. I've sprinkled available attributes everywhere because I personally dislike the implicit availability from the extension declaration because a new API introduced in an existing extension may forget to add availability which would be incorrect, so littering this everywhere hopefully makes it more obvious.Resolves: #74481