Draft
Conversation
This is a big reimplementation that simplifies the compiler a lot. Instead of storing the method set in metadata and lowering the type asserts as a whole program pass, this change just puts the list of methods in the type code (and a separate global for the interface type).
Member
|
Are you still thinking of working on this? |
|
cc @aykevl -- my assumption is no? |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 big reimplementation that simplifies the compiler a lot. Instead of storing the method set in metadata and lowering the type asserts as a whole program pass, this change just puts the list of methods in the type code (and a separate global for the interface type).
I'm still working on this. I'm not very happy with the binary size increase (~4%) but I have a few ideas how to reduce it. But I made a PR for initial review for those interested (@dgryski?)
This is also a step in the direction of #2870.