fitzgen requested cfallin for a review on PR #4697.
fitzgen opened PR #4697 from no-more-local-ctx-trait
to main
:
The trait had only one implementation: the
Lower
struct. It is easier to just
use that directly, and not introduce unnecessary layers of generics and
abstractions.Once upon a time, there was hope that we would have other implementations of the
LowerCtx
trait, that did things like lower CLIF to SMTLIB for
verification. However, this is not practical these days given the way that the
trait has evolved over time, and our verification efforts are focused on ISLE
now anyways, and we're actually making some progress on that front (much more
than anyone ever did on a secondLowerCtx
trait implementation!)<!--
Please ensure that the following steps are all taken care of before submitting
the PR.
[ ] This has been discussed in issue #..., or if not, please tell us why
here.[ ] A short description of what this does, why it is needed; if the
description becomes long, the matter should probably be discussed in an issue
first.[ ] This PR contains test cases, if meaningful.
- [ ] A reviewer from the core maintainer team has been assigned for this PR.
If you don't know who could review this, please indicate so. The list of
suggested reviewers on the right can help you.Please ensure all communication adheres to the code of conduct.
-->
cfallin submitted PR review.
cfallin created PR review comment:
FWIW, I found these "section headers" kind of useful when I spent more time looking at the lowering API. Could we keep them around by making them doc-comments on separate
impl
blocks? Something like:/// Function-level query API on Lower. impl Lower { ... } /// Instruction-level query API on Lower. impl Lower { ... } /// Instruction input/output query API on Lower. impl Lower { ... } /// Codegen action API on Lower. impl Lower { ... }
cfallin submitted PR review.
fitzgen updated PR #4697 from no-more-local-ctx-trait
to main
.
fitzgen merged PR #4697.
Last updated: Dec 23 2024 at 12:05 UTC