Skip to content

Break cyclic dependency due to implicit initialization of optional properties #63431

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

Merged

Conversation

DougGregor
Copy link
Member

The fundamental problem here is that we don't know a priori whether an accessor macro will convert a stored property into a computed one. That can only be determined after macro expansion, which depends on having a determined type for the property.

Implicit initialization of optional-typed values (e.g., "var birthDate: Date?") adds the initializer when there is storage, triggering the cycle. Introduce a very narrow fix that assumes that properties that have an accessor macro on them do not have storage. We probably want to enforce this, so that the "does this variable have storage?" query can be made cheaper.

…lues

The fundamental problem here is that we don't know a priori whether an
accessor macro will convert a stored property into a computed one.
That can only be determined after macro expansion, which depends on
having a determined type for the property.

Implicit initialization of optional-typed values (e.g., "var
birthDate: Date?") adds the initializer when there is storage,
triggering the cycle. Introduce a very narrow fix that assumes that
properties that have an accessor macro on them do not have storage.
We probably want to enforce this, so that the "does this variable have
storage?" query can be made cheaper.
@DougGregor
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci please smoke test and merge

@DougGregor
Copy link
Member Author

@swift-ci please smoke test Linux

@DougGregor DougGregor merged commit a81b0b6 into swiftlang:main Feb 5, 2023
@DougGregor DougGregor deleted the accessor-macro-implicit-cycle branch February 5, 2023 03:10
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.

1 participant