On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com> wrote:
> > > UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer.allocate(bytes:alignedTo:) >> >> Well, I think it's somewhat ridiculous for users to write this every time >> they allocate a buffer: >> >> `UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer.allocate(bytes: size, alignedTo: >> MemoryLayout<UInt>.alignment)` >> >> If anyone reading the code is unsure about the Swift API's alignment >> guarantee, it's trivial to check the API docs. >> >> You could introduce a clearly documented default `alignedTo` >> argument. The reason I didn't do that is that the runtime won't >> respect it anyway. But I think it would be fair to go ahead with the >> API and file a bug against the runtime. >> > > Default argument of MemoryLayout<Int>.alignment is the way to go but as > you said i don’t know if that is actually allowed/works. An alternative is > to have two allocate methods each, one that takes an alignment argument and > one that doesn’t (and aligns to pointer alignment) but that feels > inelegant. Default arguments would be better. > > > Default argument makes sense to me too. Then the raw buffer pointer and > regular raw pointer APIs can be consistent with each other. > > Runtime bug: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-5664 > > yikes i was not aware of this. I don’t think it’s bad enough to warrant dropping the argument like with deallocate(capacity:) but I can imagine bad things happening to code that crams extra inhabitants into pointers.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list email@example.com https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution