Sema: Clean up CSApply for CGFloat <-> Double conversion #78957
Merged
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
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
cgfloat-double-cleanup
branch
2 times, most recently
from
683c4a0 to
0035420
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
xedin
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2025
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
cgfloat-double-cleanup
branch
from
0035420 to
5cbe8cb
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
slavapestov
added a commit
to slavapestov/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
After swiftlang#78957, there is no technical reason to not allow this conversion. This is needed for an upcoming optimization.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
An implementation limitation prevented us from allowing conversions between
CGFloat?andDouble?, even thoughCGFloattoDouble?(and the other direction) was allowed. To make an upcoming performance improvement work, we have to allow these conversions, otherwise we can back ourselves into a corner and fail to find a solution in some cases.This PR does not change any behavior, but it fixes the limitation that prevented us from allowing the optional-to-optional conversion here.