- User Since
- Oct 8 2012, 9:19 AM (362 w, 6 d)
Fri, Sep 20
Seems fine if we're already doing the same thing in a few places anyway.
Thu, Sep 19
Looks good - thanks!
Looks like this might benefit from being split into independent changes - the work related to templates (I haven't looked closely, but I assume that's fairly indivisible) and the work related to other diagnostics seems fairly separable - and maybe there's other pieces too.
"Also, fix the order of if statements so that an explicit return_typestate annotation takes precedence over the default behavior for rvalue refs."
Wed, Sep 18
Could we have this as a standalone helper function (STLExtras or the like) rather than implementing it in every container?
As per the bug - I'm not super inclined towards a function attribute here (& even if it's going to be an inliner rather than debug info generation/backend thing (which I'm more on the fence about - think I'm happy with either direction there, really) - I'd still be inclined towards it living in the DICompileUnit with other debug info things, rather than a function attribute). But happy to hear what other folks (especially the usual debug info cabal - @aprantl @probinson @JDevlieghere etc) think.
Tue, Sep 17
Mon, Sep 16
Fri, Sep 13
Out of curiosity does swift have const in the type system like C and C++? (I guess so) - and what would be the difference between a normal (non-let) variable of a const type, versus a let variable of a non-const type?
What's a "true named constant" as opposed to, say, C++ (or C's) "const int X = 3;" (well, I guess const int X could be defined by a runtime expression, - OK, what about "constexpr int X = 3;" then?)
Thu, Sep 12
Some more ping (:
Oh, because copying the file is copying non-writable permissions? Fair enough.
Wed, Sep 11
I vaguely recall @lhames had some opinions on this layeering, might have another fix in mind.
Tue, Sep 10
Might be worth having some more detail in the commit message to explain why -ffunction-sections/-gc-sections isn't sufficient to remove the binary size increase.
Mon, Sep 9
Seems good to me - thanks!
Have you got a link to the original thread where this was discussed/I mentioned it? Want to page in some context to double-check if I had any ideas that might've let this simplify things.
Fair enough - thanks!
Looks good to me - thanks!
Fri, Sep 6
Any chance of test coverage? (not sure how the rest of this analysis is tested (or how we test analyses in general))
Thu, Sep 5
Sounds good to me - thanks!
Seems fairly reasonable to me - test might be able to be cleaned up a bit. Code might be cleaned up a bit (either now or in a follow-up commit)