temporarily prevent Copyable types from using consuming and borrowing
#65570
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
kavon
requested review from
hborla,
slavapestov,
xedin and
AnthonyLatsis
as code owners
|
@swift-ci please test |
gottesmm
approved these changes
May 2, 2023
|
@kavon this looks good to me. Except, can you add a flag that disables this for testing cases. Or change the tests that use this to use __shared/etc. Personally, I would rather the tests just have a special flag that way we future proof and don't have to change them in the future. |
kavon
force-pushed
the
ownership-specifiers-noncopyable-only
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7253a70 to
2b0bd31
Compare
kavon
requested review from
ahoppen,
bnbarham,
CodaFi,
DougGregor and
rintaro
as code owners
kavon
force-pushed
the
ownership-specifiers-noncopyable-only
branch
from
2b0bd31 to
6b16b82
Compare
kavon
commented
May 3, 2023
|
@gottesmm I went with guarding the ability to write it behind |
|
@swift-ci please test |
kavon
force-pushed
the
ownership-specifiers-noncopyable-only
branch
from
6b16b82 to
fa7e628
Compare
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
…ing` There is a strong desire for "no-implicit-copy" semantics to be applied to Copyable values marked with the newer `borrowing` and `consuming` ownership specifiers. If we lock ourselves into what SE-390 specifies now for Copyable types in the implementation, then we'll have to introduce a source break when we want such values to have the desired semantics. Before there's wider adoption, I'm making it an error to use those newer names. If for some reason this is enabling a critical optimization for your use case, please use the old names instead: - `__owned` for `consuming` parameters - `__consuming` for `consuming` methods - `__shared` for `borrowing` parameters NOTE: the older names have their ownership attribute mangled into the name of the function itself, so there's a possibility of ABI breaks in the future if you move from the old name to the new one. There is some consideration being made to allow for a migration to the new names in the future without breaking ABI, so do reach out if this is an issue for you. resolves rdar://108538971
part of resolving rdar://108538971
kavon
force-pushed
the
ownership-specifiers-noncopyable-only
branch
from
fa7e628 to
87f190b
Compare
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There is a strong desire for "no-implicit-copy" semantics to be applied to Copyable values marked with the newer
borrowingandconsumingownership specifiers. If we lock ourselves into what SE-390 specifies now for Copyable types in the implementation, then we'll have to introduce a source break when we want such values to have the desired semantics.Before there's wider adoption, I'm making it an error to use those newer names. If for some reason this is enabling a critical optimization for your use case, please use the old names instead:
__ownedforconsumingparameters__consumingforconsumingmethods__sharedforborrowingparametersNOTE: the older names have their ownership attribute mangled into
the name of the function itself, so there's a possibility of ABI
breaks in the future if you move from the old name to the new one.
There is some consideration being made to allow for a migration to
the new names in the future without breaking ABI, so do reach out if
this is an issue for you.
resolves rdar://108538971