typo fix #63
Merged
typo fix #63
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
tkremenek
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 3, 2015
slavapestov
pushed a commit
to slavapestov/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2018
Fix typo in configure.ac impacting libpwq configuration
slavapestov
pushed a commit
to slavapestov/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2018
Fix typo in configure.ac impacting libpwq configuration Signed-off-by: Daniel A. Steffen <dsteffen@apple.com>
maldahleh
pushed a commit
to maldahleh/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2020
build-script: don't abort after delete_rpath fails.
stephentyrone
added a commit
to stephentyrone/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2021
Previously we were falling back on the generic implementation for 64b integers, which resulted in the following codegen: 00000008 asr x8, x0, swiftlang#32 0000000c asr x9, x0, swiftlang#63 00000010 cmp x0, #0x0 00000014 cinv w10, w0, lt 00000018 eor w9, w10, w9 0000001c asr x10, x1, swiftlang#32 00000020 asr x11, x1, swiftlang#63 00000024 cmp x1, #0x0 00000028 cinv w12, w1, lt 0000002c eor w11, w12, w11 00000030 umull x12, w11, w9 00000034 mul x11, x11, x8 00000038 add x11, x11, x12, lsr swiftlang#32 0000003c asr x12, x11, swiftlang#63 00000040 cmp x11, #0x0 00000044 cinv w13, w11, lt 00000048 eor w12, w13, w12 0000004c madd x9, x9, x10, x12 00000050 mul x8, x10, x8 00000054 add x8, x8, x11, asr swiftlang#32 00000058 add x0, x8, x9, asr swiftlang#32 0000005c ret Instead, we should use the 64b implementation when targeting arm64_32, which allows us to generate: 00000008 smulh x0, x1, x0 0000000c ret Unsurprisingly, this is considerably faster.
stephentyrone
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 15, 2021
) Previously we were falling back on the generic implementation for 64b integers, which resulted in the following codegen: 00000008 asr x8, x0, #32 0000000c asr x9, x0, #63 00000010 cmp x0, #0x0 00000014 cinv w10, w0, lt 00000018 eor w9, w10, w9 0000001c asr x10, x1, #32 00000020 asr x11, x1, #63 00000024 cmp x1, #0x0 00000028 cinv w12, w1, lt 0000002c eor w11, w12, w11 00000030 umull x12, w11, w9 00000034 mul x11, x11, x8 00000038 add x11, x11, x12, lsr #32 0000003c asr x12, x11, #63 00000040 cmp x11, #0x0 00000044 cinv w13, w11, lt 00000048 eor w12, w13, w12 0000004c madd x9, x9, x10, x12 00000050 mul x8, x10, x8 00000054 add x8, x8, x11, asr #32 00000058 add x0, x8, x9, asr #32 0000005c ret Instead, we should use the 64b implementation when targeting arm64_32, which allows us to generate: 00000008 smulh x0, x1, x0 0000000c ret Unsurprisingly, this is considerably faster.
freak4pc
pushed a commit
to freak4pc/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2022
UnXFAIL mapper for swift-4.0-branch
DougGregor
pushed a commit
to DougGregor/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2024
Update the swift version to 5.5.1
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# 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.
'on top' in place of 'ontop'