-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Port missing changes from the Scala 2 backend (bug fixes for inner class generation, refactorings, optimizations ...) #14912
Comments
Tentatively assigning @Kordyjan since he's listed as primary maintainer in https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/blob/main/MAINTENANCE.md, it's possible this could be done piecewise during sprees too with the help of a backend maintainer. |
Should this be included in release 3.3.0? @Kordyjan |
This PR ports JVM backend refactor from Scala 2 as part of the #14912 thread. It squashes changes based on the PRs: - scala/scala#6012 - scala/scala#6057 The last refactor introducing backend parallelism scala/scala#6124 is left for later.
@WojciechMazur time to check another box here...? (or boxes, plural? is this done?) |
AFAIR the first two tasks were already incorporated into the Dotty, so probably the last remaining one is parallelisation (rebase in progress) |
@WojciechMazur does all thest been ported, in case missed. |
The Scala 2 and 3 backend diverged many years ago and we're missing a lot of changes that went into the Scala 2 backend. We haven't altered the structure of our backend too much, so in theory it should be possible to port changes from Scala 2 piece-by-piece. We've done that so far to port various bugfixes, but we should do the same for the bigger structural changes, if only because it would allow us to more easily diff the two backends and see what else we might be missing. I had a quick look through the history and I think the big missing pieces we should port in order are:
Note that we don't have a backend optimizer, so anything related to it can be ignored, we can consider adding back the optimizer afterwards.
@lrytz: did I miss anything?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: