[SE-0458] Bring implementation in line with the latest proposal revision #79424
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
…scriminator We found another case where we aren't getting a closure discriminator, so disable this again in non-asserts builds while we investigate. Tracked by rdar://143590572.
Since we infer unsafety from a use of a declaration that involves unsafe types in its signature, there isn't a reason to require @unsafe on declaration to restate it. This matches recent revisions of SE-0458.
DougGregor
requested review from
zoecarver,
hyp,
egorzhdan,
Xazax-hun,
j-hui,
fahadnayyar,
tshortli,
hborla,
slavapestov,
xedin,
beccadax and
ian-twilightcoder
as code owners
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
Xazax-hun
reviewed
Feb 17, 2025
|
|
||
| // Escapable and non-escapable annotations imply that the declaration is | ||
| // safe. | ||
| if (hasNonEscapableAttr(recordDecl) || hasEscapableAttr(recordDecl)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of checking for the attribute explicitly, we should use the ClangTypeEscapability request.
This will do a couple additional things:
- Inject escapability annotations for the STL
- Calculate the correct escapability for template instantiations (e.g.,
std::vector<non-escapable>is escapable) considering the conditional escapability annotations - For aggregate types it attempts to infer the escapability based on the fields.
Xazax-hun
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 18, 2025
After PR #79424 was merged the compiler proper is doing inference on what C++ types should be considered unsafe. Remove the duplicated (and slightly divergent) logic from the importer as we no longer need it and we should have a consistent view of what is considered unsafe. The only divergence left is the old logic that renames some methods to have "Unsafe" in their names. In the future, we want to get rid of this behavior (potentially under a new interop version).
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.
Several improvements to bring the implementation of the strict memory safety mode (SE-0458) into line with the latest proposal revision:
@unsafeannotation on declarations with unsafe types in their signatures@safenor@unsafe, with Fix-Its to guide the user