Conversation
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
3 times, most recently
from
97a8fec to
c80a7d1
Compare
jasikpark
changed the base branch from
format-swift-code
to
format-swift-code-with-swift-format
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0fb790d to
3593e8b
Compare
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
format-swift-code-with-swift-format
branch
from
140fa70 to
e87b780
Compare
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
from
3593e8b to
a1914aa
Compare
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
from
a1914aa to
7cd669a
Compare
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7f55ac4 to
4203038
Compare
|
Why are there some differences between the targets? 
|
This adds two warnings to the build complaining about a sending closure. <https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-evolution/blob/945d93776cf44cefaa5e685ede0fa4fc96d460ab/proposals/0414-region-based-isolation.md>
jasikpark
force-pushed
the
enable-swift-6-feature-flags
branch
from
4203038 to
a3c598b
Compare
| SWIFT_UPCOMING_FEATURE_INFER_SENDABLE_FROM_CAPTURES = YES; | ||
| SWIFT_UPCOMING_FEATURE_ISOLATED_DEFAULT_VALUES = YES; | ||
| SWIFT_UPCOMING_FEATURE_REGION_BASED_ISOLATION = YES; | ||
| SWIFT_VERSION = 5.0; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious, how was this empty before? What exactly does it do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this is just enforcing the default as of XCode 16. XCode 16 ships with the Swift 6 compiler, which can run in Swift 4, Swift 5, or Swift 6 compiler modes. So I'm enforcing the default to then upgrade to 6 later.
| MTL_ENABLE_DEBUG_INFO = NO; | ||
| SDKROOT = iphoneos; | ||
| SUPPORTED_PLATFORMS = iphoneos; | ||
| SWIFT_UPCOMING_FEATURE_DEPRECATE_APPLICATION_MAIN = YES; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like we might get some warnings from libraries that we use, but it should be fine up until swift 6:
Current Swift libraries will continue to build because they compile under pre-Swift 6 language modes. Under such language modes this proposal adds only an unconditional warning when framework-specific entrypoints are used, and provides diagnostics to avoid the warning by automatically migrating user code.
| private var configObserver: (any DispatchSourceFileSystemObject)? = nil | ||
|
|
||
| init(messenger: FlutterBinaryMessenger, site: Site) { | ||
| init(messenger: any FlutterBinaryMessenger, site: Site) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious, was this migration manual or automated?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Manually clicking "fix" in XCode, not sure how to make it more like eslint . --fix where they're all applied at once
2 participants
Each feature flag commit links to the associated swift language proposal. Most of them haven't required changes to the source code, other than
existential any, as well asregion-based isolationpopped two new warnings that I'm going to leave for future work to fix.https://flags.swiftythemes.com/language-features/5.10.html is also a bit of a guide to them.
Example of the warning:
The warnings are attempting to ensure memory safety when swift is running multi-threaded code.