Strict safety more minor cleanups #80103
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
The implementation of `withoutActuallyEscaping` for `@convention(block)` functions cannot verify at runtime that the function did not actually escape. Diagnose this as unsafe code under strict memory safety checking. Fixes rdar://139994149.
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Two small improvements to SE-458 strict memory safety checking:
withoutActuallyEscapingis unsafe for@convention(block)(rdar://139994149)unsafein theno unsafe operations occur within 'unsafe' expressionwarning and put it into the StrictMemorySafety diagnostic group