Skip to content

update recent addition to 5.0 syntax #258

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tomerd
Copy link
Member

@tomerd tomerd commented Jan 26, 2023

motivation: support 5.0 clients

changes: return value explicitly

motivation: support 5.0 clients

changes: return value epxlicitly
@tomerd
Copy link
Member Author

tomerd commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Member

@ktoso ktoso left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Lgtm, but there's a discussion to have here. During #238 the consensus was to drop 5.0 support, so that's what we did and documented in release notes, removed the CI etc. So if we want to retract that move we need to do so properly, rather than with an adhoc fix that will regress again without CI.

The summary is that the 5.0 compiler can't survive parsing a task local, even when #if-ed out. There's no workaround in the language. So we'd have to do an very involved tricky dance to make some test into a separate module, only include it in build in new package files and modify the generate Linux tests script to handle this -- I had done all that but everyone in the review had voted against supporting 5.0 at the cost of this complexity so we dropped it.

So... 5.0 isn't supported, as documented in 1.5 release and adhoc fixing it is not the right way -- either we revive the workarounds I did, or we stick to our decision to drop 5.0

@tomerd
Copy link
Member Author

tomerd commented Jan 26, 2023

@ktoso right I remember that discussion. it does mean we need to remove the [email protected] file so that SwiftPM will happily satisfy the dependency causing potential issues to downstream projects

@ktoso
Copy link
Member

ktoso commented Jan 30, 2023

Hah I see, we missed to remove the file, here's a PR to rectify that: #259

@ktoso
Copy link
Member

ktoso commented Jan 31, 2023

Superseded by #259

@ktoso ktoso closed this Jan 31, 2023
@ktoso ktoso added the wontfix label Jan 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants