[6.3 cherry-pick] SE-0492: Closures, static funcs, @convention(c) #86165
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
kubamracek
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
@swift-ci please test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
6.3 cherry-pick of SE-0492 implementation that missed the branch point:
SE-0492: Add support for closures (with no captures) into @section expressions #85530
Allow referencing static functions in @section expressions #85423
SE-0492: Allow any @convention(c) function conversions #86088
Explanation: Remaining implementation of SE-0492.
Scope: Implementation's scope/impact limited to users of
@section.Issues: N/A
Original PRs: SE-0492: Add support for closures (with no captures) into @section expressions #85530, Allow referencing static functions in @section expressions #85423, SE-0492: Allow any @convention(c) function conversions #86088
Risk: Low, affects users of
@sectiononly.Testing: Lit tests.
Reviewers: @DougGregor