Remove unnecessary unsafeUnwrap calls.
#2
Closed
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
Since `dropFirst` does not return an `Optional`, `unsafeUnwrap(xs.dropFirst())` first implicitly wraps result of `dropFirst` into an optional and then calls `unsafeUnwrap` on that.
|
Nice. I wonder if we should do something to make it a compilation error to pass a non-optional to |
|
This pull request has a single commit, so I think it is okay to accept it because this merge will be just like a regular rebased commit to master. |
|
It’s not going to be rebased just because it’s a single commit, @nadavrot. |
|
@dabrahams Making |
|
@gribozavr the only question is whether we want it to show up in completion lists. I think people type “.” on a known optional infrequently, but if they don’t remember the thing is an optional it might well lead them astray. |
|
Cherry-picked into master. |
frootloops
added a commit
to frootloops/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 24, 2015
1 task
DougGregor
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 30, 2016
… the left-hand side. Rather than using a specialized matching rule in the type checker that depends on having default arguments in types, use call argument matching consistently. Note #1: This (correctly) breaks some existing code that depends on inferring a parameter type of () for a single-argument parameter from a no-argument function type(). Note #2: This pessimizes a code completion test, where the code completion engine seems to depend on some quirks of argument matching. The "type relationship" matching needs non-trivial work.
dabrahams
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2016
There's no need for a deferred conversion in these cases. This time committing ALL the changes needed to get the validation tests to pass.
This was referenced Aug 22, 2020
kavon
added a commit
to kavon/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2022
While trying to reuse the liveness-points analysis originally in DI for
injecting actor hops for more general purposes, Pavel and I discovered
that the point at which we are injecting the hops might not have
fully-computed the liveness information.
That appears to be the case because we were computing the fully-initialized
points before having processed destroy/releases of TheMemory. While this
most likely had no influence on the actor hop injection, it does affect
what the outgoing AvailabilitySet contains for a block. In particular, for
this example:
```swift
struct X {
init(cond: Bool) {
var _storage: (name: String, age: Int)
_storage.name = ""
if cond {
_storage.age = 30
} else {
_storage.age = 40
}
}
}
```
But because we are determine the full initialization points before processing
the destroy, the liveness analysis doesn't iterate to correctly determine the
out-availability of block 1 and 3 (corresponding to the then and else blocks
in the example above). Here's the debug output showing that issue:
```
*** Definite Init looking at: %5 = mark_uninitialized [var] %4 : $*(name: String, age: Int) // users: %37, %12, %22, %32
Get liveness 0, swiftlang#1 at assign %11 to %13 : $*String // id: %14
Get liveness 1, swiftlang#1 at assign %21 to %23 : $*Int // id: %24
Get liveness for block 1
Iteration 0
Result: (yn)
Get liveness 1, swiftlang#1 at assign %31 to %33 : $*Int // id: %34
Get liveness for block 3
add block 2 to worklist
Iteration 0
Block 2 out: (yn)
Iteration 1
Block 2 out: (yn)
Result: (yn)
full-init-finder: rejecting bb0 b/c non-Yes OUT avail
full-init-finder: rejecting bb1 b/c non-Yes OUT avail
full-init-finder: rejecting bb2 b/c no non-load uses.
full-init-finder: rejecting bb3 b/c non-Yes OUT avail
full-init-finder: rejecting bb4 b/c no non-load uses.
Get liveness 0, swiftlang#2 at destroy_addr %5 : $*(name: String, age: Int) // id: %37
Get liveness for block 4
add block 3 to worklist
add block 1 to worklist
Iteration 0
Block 1 out: (yy)
Block 3 out: (yy)
Iteration 1
Block 1 out: (yy)
Block 3 out: (yy)
Result: (yy)
```
So, this patch basically just sinks the computation so it happens after, so that
we force the incremental liveness analysis to also consider the liveness at the
point of the destroy, but before having done any other transformations or modifications
to the CFG to handle a destroy of something partially initialized.
freak4pc
pushed a commit
to freak4pc/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2022
Add "platforms" field to readme examples
This was referenced Oct 4, 2022
hyp
added a commit
to hyp/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2023
compnerd
added a commit
to compnerd/apple-swift
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2023
# This is the 1st commit message: utils: update the build-windows-toolchain.bat to extract the toolchain Fetch a prebuilt toolchain to build the toolchain. This is required to enable the macro support on Windows. # The commit message swiftlang#2 will be skipped: # build: build SwiftSyntax before the toolchain build # # Perform a build of Swift Syntax prior to the build of the toolchain so # that we can enable the early swift syntax parser builds. This is a # prerequisite for enabling macros on Windows. # The commit message swiftlang#3 will be skipped: # # This is a combination of 5 commits. # # This is the 1st commit message: # # build: wire up the early swift-syntax build to the build # # This enables the early swift syntax build to get us macro support on # Windows. # # # The commit message swiftlang#2 will be skipped: # # # Update build-windows-toolchain.bat # # # The commit message swiftlang#3 will be skipped: # # # Update build-windows-toolchain.bat # # # The commit message swiftlang#4 will be skipped: # # # Update build-windows-toolchain.bat # # # The commit message swiftlang#5 will be skipped: # # # Update build-windows-toolchain.bat
Azoy
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2024
Co-authored-by: Karoy Lorentey <klorentey@apple.com>
Catfish-Man
pushed a commit
to Catfish-Man/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 19, 2024
Co-authored-by: Karoy Lorentey <klorentey@apple.com>
carlos4242
pushed a commit
to carlos4242/swift
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2024
Co-authored-by: Karoy Lorentey <klorentey@apple.com>
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.
Since
dropFirstdoes not return anOptional,unsafeUnwrap(xs.dropFirst())first implicitly wraps result ofdropFirstinto an optional and then callsunsafeUnwrapon that.