Skip to content

[SPARK-56857] Upgrade Swift to 6.3.2#367

Draft
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
dongjoon-hyun:SPARK-56857
Draft

[SPARK-56857] Upgrade Swift to 6.3.2#367
dongjoon-hyun wants to merge 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
dongjoon-hyun:SPARK-56857

Conversation

@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR aims to use Swift 6.3.2 instead of Swift 6.3.1.

Why are the changes needed?

To pick up Swift 6.3.2 (2026-05-11), which contains 91 commits on top of 6.3.1, with a heavy focus on concurrency and stack-nesting correctness — directly relevant to this async-heavy project. Notable fixes include:

  • Follow-up SIL/IRGen work hardening async let stack allocation (e.g. "Fix a bug involving two async lets on the stack at once", "Don't delay stack deallocation of non-nested allocations"), continuing the line of fixes started in 6.3.1 (swiftlang/swift#87896, #88254).
  • "[Concurrency] Fix stripConcurrency to avoid dropping parameter isolation".
  • "[SILOptimizer] fix an erroneous hop_to_executor removal" and "Prevent function signature optimization from removing implicit leading isolation parameter".
  • "[IRGen] Sign protocol witnesses in relative witness table access" / ptrauth discriminator cache fix (#88105, #88135).
  • "COWOpts: Don't look through struct_extract for multi-field structs".

Full commit range: swift-6.3.1-RELEASE...swift-6.3.2-RELEASE.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

Pass the CIs.

Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context)

@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun added this to the 0.7.0 milestone May 13, 2026
@dongjoon-hyun dongjoon-hyun marked this pull request as draft May 13, 2026 21:53
@dongjoon-hyun
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

dongjoon-hyun commented May 14, 2026

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants