Re: [swift-dev] Swift CI will be down for maintenance - Nov 1st 2017 - 5pm PST

Updated macOS nodes on ci.swift.org to Xcode 9.1 (9B55). Maintenance completed! Thanks, Mishal Shah > On Nov 1, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Mishal Shah wrote: > > We will be taking down ci.swift.org for maintenance > today at 5pm PST to update the Xcode. Please avoid triggering

[swift-dev] [Swift CI] Build Failure: OSS - Swift Package - OS X (master) #605

Title: Report [FAILURE] oss-swift-package-osx [#605] Build URL:https://ci.swift.org/job/oss-swift-package-osx/605/ Project:oss-swift-package-osx Date of build:Wed, 01 Nov 2017 17:50:09 -0500 Build duration:4 hr 2 min Changes Commit f4db36426c047ff

Re: [swift-dev] Todo cleanups & such

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 8:05 PM, David Sweeris via swift-dev > wrote: > > In "SILFunction.h", line 171, it says, > /// The function's set of semantics attributes. > /// > /// TODO: Why is this using a std::string? Why don't we use uniqued > /// StringRefs? > llvm::SmallVector SemanticsAt

Re: [swift-dev] "Near-miss" warnings for protocol conformances

That sounds awesome! Don't have much time right now to check the details but these 'near misses' have been a real problem for us. > On 26 Oct 2017, at 9:28 pm, Douglas Gregor via swift-dev > wrote: > > I have a pull request up to introduce “near-miss” warnings for protocol > conformances: >

[swift-dev] Todo cleanups & such

In "SILFunction.h", line 171, it says, /// The function's set of semantics attributes. /// /// TODO: Why is this using a std::string? Why don't we use uniqued /// StringRefs? llvm::SmallVector SemanticsAttrSet; As an outside contributor, seeing as how I have no idea why a std::string was

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 13:47 David Sweeris wrote: > > On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 23:43 David Sweeris wrote: > >> >> On Oct 31, 2017, at 20:58, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017

[swift-dev] Swift CI will be down for maintenance - Nov 1st 2017 - 5pm PST

We will be taking down ci.swift.org for maintenance today at 5pm PST to update the Xcode. Please avoid triggering pull request testing during the maintenance. I will reply to this email once the maintenance has started and completed. Thanks, Mishal Shah ___

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 23:43 David Sweeris > wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 20:58, Xiaodi Wu > wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Xiaodi Wu >

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 23:43 David Sweeris wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 20:58, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:23 PM, David Sweeris >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Greg Titus via swift-dev > wrote: > >> On Nov 1, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-dev >> wrote: >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev >>> wrote: >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Stephen Canon via swift-dev >>> wrote: [Reply

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Nov 1, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-dev > wrote: >> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev >> wrote: >> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Stephen Canon via swift-dev >> wrote: >>> [Replying to the thread as a whole] >>> >>> There have been a bunch of suggestions

Re: [swift-dev] Rationalizing FloatingPoint conformance to Equatable

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev > wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Stephen Canon via swift-dev > wrote: >> [Replying to the thread as a whole] >> >> There have been a bunch of suggestions for variants of `==` that either trap >> on NaN or return `Bool?`.