Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

represent Type as a tagged union #809

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
Jan 8, 2025
Merged

represent Type as a tagged union #809

merged 27 commits into from
Jan 8, 2025

Conversation

Vexu
Copy link
Owner

@Vexu Vexu commented Dec 29, 2024

Inspired by the similar changes to the AST (#807) this should finally make Type less painful to use.

Closes #733

@Vexu Vexu force-pushed the rewrite-type branch 2 times, most recently from 603ea97 to 9e168a1 Compare January 1, 2025 16:50
@Vexu Vexu marked this pull request as ready for review January 1, 2025 17:02
Vexu added 2 commits January 3, 2025 00:03
Inspired by the similar changes to the AST (#807) this should
finally make Type less painful to use.
@Vexu
Copy link
Owner Author

Vexu commented Jan 6, 2025

Slowly getting there...

#test-integration:
282 passed; 53 failed.
#test-record:
max mem used = 8.49MiB
8270 passed; 657 failed (518 invalid targets).

Looks like there will be a nice bonus 0.4 MiB memory usage drop from #817 (comment)

@Vexu Vexu merged commit 58a9330 into master Jan 8, 2025
3 checks passed
@Vexu
Copy link
Owner Author

Vexu commented Jan 8, 2025

I'll allow some record layout tests to regress to get this merged, those can be fixed later when I recover from this.

This will almost definitely also regress untested code paths considering how long it took to get the tested ones working again, probably a good time to do some fuzz testing with this and #807 touching so many parts of the compiler.

@Vexu Vexu deleted the rewrite-type branch January 8, 2025 14:22
@ehaas
Copy link
Collaborator

ehaas commented Jan 8, 2025

Nice work!

@Vexu
Copy link
Owner Author

Vexu commented Jan 8, 2025

Thanks!

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.

Proposal: treat typedef types as separate type specifier
2 participants