-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 476
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
[Refactoring] Replace 'NOINLINE' with 'OPAQUE' #6507
[Refactoring] Replace 'NOINLINE' with 'OPAQUE' #6507
Conversation
/benchmark validation |
/benchmark nofib |
/benchmark lists |
/benchmark marlowe |
Click here to check the status of your benchmark. |
OPAQUE is strictly better than NOINLINE for the plugin, but I don't think that is the case for non-Plinth code. |
Sure, but usually when I write |
Comparing benchmark results of 'validation' on 'e94d73c65' (base) and '38b1487f8' (PR) Results table
|
Click here to check the status of your benchmark. |
Interesting! |
Comparing benchmark results of 'nofib' on 'e94d73c65' (base) and '38b1487f8' (PR) Results table
|
Click here to check the status of your benchmark. |
It honestly looks like the benchmarking machine is broken. I'll test that separately. |
Comparing benchmark results of 'lists' on 'e94d73c65' (base) and '38b1487f8' (PR) Results table
|
Click here to check the status of your benchmark. |
Comparing benchmark results of 'marlowe' on 'e94d73c65' (base) and '38b1487f8' (PR) Results table
|
The benchmarking machine is broken at the moment, so we can't get accurate benchmarking results. I think it's unlikely that we need |
This replaces all occurrences of
NOINLINE
with the more reliableOPAQUE
. However unlikeNOINLINE
OPAQUE
prevents specialization, so let's benchmark this to make sure there's no unexpected slowdown.Resolves #6269.