[6.2][cxx-interop] Fix passing optional CoreFoundation types from Swift to C++ #84077
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
…ft to C++ ExplanationThese types are passed around as reference counted pointers, so the optional representation of them are nullable pointers. Previously, we tried to wrap them in swift::Optional. Issues: rdar://157667946 Original PRs: swiftlang#83609 Risk: Low, the fix is narrow. Testing: Added a compiler test. Reviewers: @hnrklssn
Xazax-hun
added
c++ interop
|
@swift-ci please test |
hnrklssn
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
DougGregor
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Explanation: These types are passed around as reference counted pointers, so the optional representation of them are nullable pointers. Previously, we tried to wrap them in swift::Optional.
Issues: rdar://157667946
Original PRs: #83609
Risk: Low, the fix is narrow.
Testing: Added a compiler test.
Reviewers: @hnrklssn