> 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
