[BitwiseCopyable] Allow suppression via ~. #72646
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we care that MemoryLayout is not bitwise copyable? It has no cases anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was requested here: swiftlang/swift-evolution#2314 (comment) .
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will introduce a second representation for the ~Protocol syntax in the AST: For the "invertible" protocols like Copyable, we represent them as a ProtocolCompositionType, which has its own list of inverses. I think that representation doesn't make sense for this use case, so it's okay to have two.
nate-chandler
force-pushed
the
bitwise-copyable/20240327/1
branch
12 times, most recently
from
5943253 to
adf0553
Compare
nate-chandler
force-pushed
the
bitwise-copyable/20240327/1
branch
7 times, most recently
from
5e87c57 to
78f3e45
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
nate-chandler
requested review from
CodaFi,
ahoppen,
bnbarham,
hamishknight,
hborla,
slavapestov and
xedin
as code owners
nate-chandler
requested review from
a team,
rintaro and
tshortli
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you want to look at the callers of getDirectlyInheritedNominalTypeDecls() in ConformanceLookupTable.cpp, and put the logic there. getDirectlyInheritedNominalTypeDecls() should be generalized to collect and return these new "repressible" protocols.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like a lot of new code for just the new ~BitwiseCopyable syntax. Can you instead find a way to generalize the existing logic for ~Copyable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think having a different representation for this case--the case of a protocol that isn't conformed to by all types by default (i.e. unlike Copyable) but is inferred automatically for some types--makes sense.
lib/Sema/TypeCheckDeclPrimary.cpp
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the wrong thing to turn into a request. checkInheritanceClause() only exists to emit diagnostics, and we don't want to emit the diagnostics in a secondary file. TypeCheckDeclPrimary.cpp shouldn't have logic for computing things, it's just diagnostics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed this requestification and moved SuppressesConformanceRequest into TypeCheckRequestFunctions.cpp.
nate-chandler
force-pushed
the
bitwise-copyable/20240327/1
branch
from
78f3e45 to
0e78f7e
Compare
|
@swift-ci please build toolchain |
This is the subset of suppressible protocols that are not invertible. This commit doesn't add any such protocols.
Add the machinery to support suppression of inference of conformance to protocols that would otherwise be derived automatically. This commit does not enable any conformances to be suppressed.
In addition to the existing language mechanism of `@available(*, unavailable)`.
nate-chandler
force-pushed
the
bitwise-copyable/20240327/1
branch
from
0e78f7e to
eb1f0ac
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
1 similar comment
|
@swift-ci please test |
3 participants
In addition to the existing language mechanism of
@available(*, unavailable)on an extension.