<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Karl Wagner &lt;<a href="mailto:razielim@gmail.com" class="">razielim@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Oh, one more thing (about this specific change): If we do this, we should add an “offset” parameter to UnsafeMutableBufferPointer.[move]initialize/assign (with a default of 0 for source compatibility). Otherwise, it becomes awkward to initialise a region of a buffer from another buffer.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What I want to write:</div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">buffer.suffix(from: filled).initialize(from: newData)</font></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>If SubSequence is not another unsafe pointer, I’d have to do this:<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">buffer.baseAddress!.advanced(by: filled).initialize(from: newData) &nbsp;// Warning: deprecated in Swift 4.0</font></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Oh no. Don't do that. You're supposed to do:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer(rebasing: buffer.suffix(from: filled)).initialize(from: newData)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don't blame you for not wanting to write out the type name.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></blockquote>So instead, we should have the ability to write this:<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">buffer.initialize(startingAt: filled, from: newData) // awkward labels, but src compat…</font></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>I agree that's worth doing as a result of changing the slice type. You</div><div>shouldn't need to "rebase" the buffer each time you want to initialize</div><div>a region. My concern is that there are a handful of APIs to fix</div><div>(initialize, initializeMemory, copyBytes, load). We should handle them</div><div>all in one proposal, and we may want time to bikeshed the API. I'm</div><div>unconvinced this is worth pursuing for Swift 4. Can you file a bug?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But yeah, this post just reminded me that there are a number of small consistency tweaks we could make to the unsafe-buffer API.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Yeah, but these are convenience issues, not correctness issues.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I think these are the ones that are important, obvious, and trivial</div><div>enough that might make sense in Swift 4.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>** UnsafeBufferPointer should have init from mutable</div><div><a href="https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3929" class="">https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3929</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>** UnsafeMutableBufferPointer doesn't have an allocating init</div><div><a href="https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3088" class="">https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3088</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>** UnsafeBufferPointer needs a withMemoryRebound method</div><div><a href="https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4340" class="">https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-4340</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>** Implicit Conversion: &amp;Tuple to UnsafePointer&lt;Tuple.Element&gt;</div><div><a href="https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3590" class="">https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-3590</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Andy</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Karl</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 24 Mar 2017, at 03:22, Karl Wagner &lt;<a href="mailto:karl.swift@springsup.com" class="">karl.swift@springsup.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">The convenience initialiser should exist on all of the unsafe buffers, not just the raw (untyped) ones.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>I’ve run in to this problem a few times, and I think it would get worse if we adopted a ContiguouslyStored protocol to formalise accessing the raw-pointers of generic collections. It would mean that you couldn’t write code that works with UnsafeRawBufferPointer/Data/DispatchData generically, or with UnsafeBufferPointer&lt;T&gt;/Array&lt;T&gt;.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, there seem to be some implicit conversions for the unsafe-pointer types, but UMBP -&gt; UBP requires an awkward initialiser. We should introduce an implicit conversion for that case or add an “immutable” computed property to UMBP.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And while we’re on the subject, memory allocation/deallocation functions are weirdly dispersed. In order to allocate an UnsafeMutableBufferPointer&lt;T&gt;, for instance, you have to do:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">var buffer: UnsafeMutableBufferPointer&lt;T&gt;</font></div><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">init(length: Int) {</font></div><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">&nbsp; let&nbsp;b&nbsp;&nbsp;=&nbsp;UnsafeMutablePointer&lt;T&gt;.allocate(capacity: length)</font></div><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">&nbsp; buffer&nbsp;=&nbsp;UnsafeMutableBufferPointer(start: b, count: length)</font></div><div class=""><font face="Courier" class="">}</font></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, the deallocate API feels weird - since it deallocates n items from the head of the pointer, it is a consuming operation and I feel like it should return a new pointer (with @discardableResult). Once you’ve deallocated a memory address, you can never re-allocate that specific location so there is no reason to know about it any more.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Karl</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 21 Mar 2017, at 03:21, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution &lt;<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">This proposal amends SE-0138: Normalize UnsafeRawBufferPointer Slices<br class="">to fix a design bug: <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/651" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/651</a><br class=""><br class="">The issue was discussed on swift-evolution in Nov/Dec:<br class="">See [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Normalize Slice Types for Unsafe Buffers<br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161128/029108.html" class="">https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161128/029108.html</a><br class=""><br class="">The implementation of this fix is in PR #8222:<br class=""><a href="https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/8222" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/8222</a><br class=""><br class="">Fix: Change Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer's SubSequence type<br class=""><br class="">Original: Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer.SubSequence = Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer<br class=""><br class="">Fixed: Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer.SubSequence = [Mutable]RandomAccessSlice&lt;Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer&gt;<br class=""><br class="">This is a source breaking bug fix that only applies to<br class="">post-3.0.1. It's extremely unlikely that any Swift 3 code would rely<br class="">on the SubSequence type beyond the simple use case of passing a<br class="">raw buffer subrange to an another raw buffer argument:<br class=""><br class="">`takesRawBuffer(buffer[i..&lt;j])`<br class=""><br class="">A diagnostic message now instructs users to convert the slice to a<br class="">buffer using a `rebasing` initializer:<br class=""><br class="">`takesRawBuffer(UnsafeRawBufferPointer(rebasing: buffer[i..&lt;j]))`<br class=""><br class="">To support this, the following `rebasing` initializers are added:<br class=""><br class="">extension UnsafeRawBufferPointer {<br class=""> &nbsp;public init(rebasing slice: RandomAccessSlice&lt;UnsafeRawBufferPointer&gt;)<br class=""> &nbsp;public init(<br class=""> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;rebasing slice: MutableRandomAccessSlice&lt;UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer&gt;<br class=""> &nbsp;)<br class="">}<br class=""><br class="">extension UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer {<br class=""> &nbsp;public init(<br class=""> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;rebasing slice: MutableRandomAccessSlice&lt;UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer&gt;<br class=""> &nbsp;)<br class="">}<br class=""><br class="">The source compatibility test builds are unnaffected by this change.<br class=""><br class="">-Andy<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>