Rework inlining logic #463
Merged
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
dcodeIO
commented
Feb 6, 2019
MaxGraey
reviewed
Feb 6, 2019
|
With the wrapping fixed, this should be good to merge now, unless there are other comments :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As an alternative to #460 this PR makes inlining a first class citizen by integrating it into flows, and in turn makes flows the primary concept of holding compilation state. As a result we can differentiate between the function we are generating and the actual function being compiled inline at any time, allowing us to inline constructors, super calls and whatnot more easily.
In general it appears that this is the way to go since we are heavily relying on inlining, for example when it comes to internal macros, and we'd like to have as much control over it as possible.