[DiscardingTG] Fix runtime signature mismatch for statically known -> Void closure
#66219
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
… Void closure Since swiftlang#65613, DiscardingTG started to accept `() -> Void` instead of `() -> T`, but it also changed the number of arguments accepted by the closure from 3 to 2. So it should use `non_future_adapter` instead of `future_adapter` to avoid runtime signature mismatch.
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
ktoso
approved these changes
May 30, 2023
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test macOS |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Since #65613, DiscardingTG started to accept
() -> Voidinstead of() -> T, but it also changed the number of arguments accepted by the closure from 3 to 2. So it should usenon_future_adapterinstead offuture_adapterto avoid runtime signature mismatch.