Replace Foundation.Date with TimePoint #1171
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
CodaFi
force-pushed
the
time-lords
branch
2 times, most recently
from
abd78f0
to
0e7f367
Compare
|
@swift-ci test |
|
@swift-ci test Windows |
|
@swift-ci test Windows |
compnerd
reviewed
Sep 7, 2022
compnerd
reviewed
Sep 7, 2022
A TimePoint functions like a Duration, but for products that cannot yet use the niceties in Swift 5.7 like the Swift driver. This type carries a 64-bit second value and a 32-bit nanosecond value. Like Duration, it does not represent any one OS clock value, but is rather just a "point in time". Using this type, we can simplify and clean up quite a few places that were trafficking in Foundation.Date and prepare for a future world where we have Duration too. These simplifications come in the ensuing patches.
Now that the relevant file system utilities have been migrated, there are no more dependencies on Foundation.Date left in the library.
|
@swift-ci test |
|
Eek; this seems to regress the test suite pretty badly: |
owenv
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2022
|
My bad, I need to correct for the Windows epoch difference in the file modification time function. |
|
@swift-ci test |
|
@swift-ci test Windows |
compnerd
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2022
CodaFi
added a commit
to CodaFi/swift-package-manager
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2022
In response to swiftlang/swift-driver#1171, adopt TimePoint over Foundation.Date in the interface of DriverExecutor.
CodaFi
added a commit
to swiftlang/swift-package-manager
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2022
In response to swiftlang/swift-driver#1171, adopt TimePoint over Foundation.Date in the interface of DriverExecutor.
finagolfin
reviewed
Sep 12, 2022
| // Other candidates include std::chrono's std::time_point::max - which is | ||
| // about 9223372036854775807 - enough to comfortably bound the age of the | ||
| // universe. | ||
| return .seconds(64_092_211_200) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@CodaFi, it appears this line broke building this repo for armv7, because seconds(value:) takes an Int above:
swift-driver/Sources/SwiftDriver/Utilities/DateAdditions.swift:126:21: error: integer literal '64092211200' overflows when stored into 'Int'
return .seconds(64_092_211_200)
Maybe it should take an explicit Int64 instead?
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.
A TimePoint functions like a Duration, but for products that cannot yet use the niceties in Swift 5.7 like the Swift driver. This type carries a 64-bit second value and a 32-bit nanosecond value. Like Duration, it does not represent any one OS clock value, but is rather just a "point in time".
Using this type, we can simplify and clean up quite a few places that were trafficking in Foundation.Date and prepare for a future world where we have Duration too. The driver uses time point values to compare file modification times to each other - hence why we can get away with ignoring the epoch. The one oddity is the build record, which serializes time point values. But build records, like the rest of the incremental state, are not actually meant to leave a given user's machine.