Skip to content

Conversation

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor

This is part of a larger set of changes. Not much here.

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please smoke test

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please test source compatibility

@xedin
Copy link
Contributor

xedin commented Dec 18, 2024

Is this NFC?

@slavapestov slavapestov force-pushed the incremental-bindings-part-0 branch from 752aa64 to d9cdc5c Compare January 14, 2025 20:32
@slavapestov slavapestov force-pushed the incremental-bindings-part-0 branch from d9cdc5c to a450802 Compare January 15, 2025 18:04
@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please smoke test

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please test source compatibility

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@xedin I finally fixed the test failures here. Also I'm leaving in the commit that adds BindingSet::operator==, which was used for the verification in the old approach I was working on. If we don't need this operator within a week or two let's remove it.

Building the DenseMap in determineBestBindings() is extremely
expensive.

Also rename getCurrentBindings() to getPotentialBindings().
We're not planning on removing the splitter because it is a big win
in some cases, but we want to run it less often since it can also
be a source of overhead. This flag allows us to compare performance
to understand the tradeoffs better.
This will be used for debugging.
@slavapestov slavapestov force-pushed the incremental-bindings-part-0 branch from a450802 to 9a48fed Compare January 16, 2025 03:30
@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swift-ci Please smoke test

@slavapestov slavapestov merged commit d1d2411 into swiftlang:main Jan 16, 2025
3 checks passed
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