🍒[5.9][Sema] Improve SerialExecutor diagnostics #67231
Merged
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
ktoso
changed the title
|
@swift-ci smoke test |
ktoso
added
concurrency
DougGregor
approved these changes
Jul 12, 2023
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
Thx, @kabiroberai and Doug! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description: This PR tackles the case of SerialExecutor conformances with pre-SwiftStdlib 5.9 deployment targets. Previously, such a conformance would produce an unfixable warning about the enqueue(UnownedJob) requirement being deprecated — even though it's the only requirement that can be implemented without restricting the availability to SwiftStdlib 5.9. Fixing this involves two main changes:
The aforementioned warning will now be emitted iff the witness' nominal type has a sufficiently recent availability, under which the ExecutorJob requirement can be used.
There is now a new warning if both ExecutorJob and UnownedJob requirements are implemented in a pre-5.9 availability context, pointing out that the ExecutorJob overload will never be selected.
Risk: Low, only prevents a warning diagnostic
Review by: @DougGregor @hborla
Testing: CI testing, also verified freestanding configuration
Original PR: #66934
Radar: rdar://110329131