From bcb83fd68710daf1f5ddd8252d0a0a4557494ca7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Lively <tlively@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:52:52 -0400
Subject: Count supertypes when collecting module types (#6838)
Previously we included supertypes, but did not increase their count.
This was done so that the output for the nominal type system, which
introduced explicitly supertypes, would more closely match the output
with the old equirecursive types system. Neither type system exists
anymore and we only support the single, standard isorecursive type
system, so we can now properly count supertypes. It turns out it doesn't
make much of a difference in the test outputs anyway.
---
src/ir/module-utils.cpp | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
(limited to 'src/ir/module-utils.cpp')
diff --git a/src/ir/module-utils.cpp b/src/ir/module-utils.cpp
index 8ad127086..da2d7bb9f 100644
--- a/src/ir/module-utils.cpp
+++ b/src/ir/module-utils.cpp
@@ -516,11 +516,7 @@ InsertOrderedMap<HeapType, size_t> getHeapTypeCounts(Module& wasm,
if (auto super = ht.getDeclaredSuperType()) {
if (!counts.counts.count(*super)) {
noteNewType(*super);
- // We should unconditionally count supertypes, but while the type
- // system is in flux, skip counting them to keep the type orderings in
- // nominal test outputs more similar to the orderings in the
- // equirecursive outputs. FIXME
- counts.include(*super);
+ counts.note(*super);
}
}
--
cgit v1.2.3