Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sync main from swc-project #4

Merged
merged 2,160 commits into from
Nov 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

NullVoxPopuli
Copy link

No description provided.

swc-bot and others added 30 commits August 28, 2024 10:21
…e inlining property access (#9507)

**Related issue:**

 - Closes #9498
…#9530)

Closes #9500

Caused by
https://github.com/swc-project/swc/blob/c7fdd6b69b129a11465125d4e11a898326b7e884/crates/swc_ecma_minifier/src/compress/pure/misc.rs#L1547.
When the object with getters pass to `self.ignore_return_value`,

https://github.com/swc-project/swc/blob/c7fdd6b69b129a11465125d4e11a898326b7e884/crates/swc_ecma_minifier/src/compress/pure/misc.rs#L966
converts the object to `0` because the object is side-effect-free
according to

https://github.com/swc-project/swc/blob/c7fdd6b69b129a11465125d4e11a898326b7e884/crates/swc_ecma_utils/src/lib.rs#L1496

We should skip this process to fix the issue.

As is known only accessing getters and setters may cause side effect, we
can safely do the transformation when none of them appears in the
object. More precision is possible if comparing the lit prop names. I
also collect computed keys of getters and setters in the object, is
there any bad case?

The reason why only numeric (string) key removes the statement is that
string key (`Computed`) is converted to `Ident` in other phases, e.g.
`{}['a']` => `{}.a`, which does not matching the pattern.
swc-bot and others added 25 commits November 6, 2024 10:03
**Related issue:**

 - Closes #9716

---------

Co-authored-by: OJ Kwon <[email protected]>
This PR contains the following updates:

| Package | Type | Update | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
|
[allocator-api2](https://redirect.github.com/zakarumych/allocator-api2)
| workspace.dependencies | patch | `0.2.18` -> `0.2.19` |
| [libfuzzer-sys](https://redirect.github.com/rust-fuzz/libfuzzer) |
dependencies | patch | `0.4.7` -> `0.4.8` |

---

### Release Notes

<details>
<summary>rust-fuzz/libfuzzer (libfuzzer-sys)</summary>

###
[`v0.4.8`](https://redirect.github.com/rust-fuzz/libfuzzer/blob/HEAD/CHANGELOG.md#048)

[Compare
Source](https://redirect.github.com/rust-fuzz/libfuzzer/compare/0.4.7...0.4.8)

Released 2024-11-07.

##### Added

-   Bindings to `LLVMFuzzerCustomCrossOver` through the `fuzz_crossover`
macro. See the `example_crossover` directory in this crate's repo for a
    complete example.

##### Changed

- Updated to `libFuzzer` commit
`ab51eccf88f5321e7c60591c5546b254b6afab99`
    (`release/19.x`).

***

</details>

---

### Configuration

📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined),
Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 **Automerge**: Enabled.

♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR is behind base branch, or you tick the
rebase/retry checkbox.

👻 **Immortal**: This PR will be recreated if closed unmerged. Get
[config
help](https://redirect.github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions) if
that's undesired.

---

- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check
this box

---

This PR was generated by [Mend Renovate](https://mend.io/renovate/).
View the [repository job
log](https://developer.mend.io/github/swc-project/swc).

<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzOS43LjEiLCJ1cGRhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzOS43LjEiLCJ0YXJnZXRCcmFuY2giOiJtYWluIiwibGFiZWxzIjpbXX0=-->

Co-authored-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
**Description:**

This reverts commit 772f023.

**Related issue:**

 - Reverts #9717
**Related issue:**

 - Reverts #9732
 - Reverts #9731
 - Reverts #9730
**Description:**

`declare const MY_MAGIC_VARIABLE: string` is not a variable declaration.

**Related issue:**

 - vercel/next.js#72576
@NullVoxPopuli
Copy link
Author

Gonna close in favor of merging in to content-tag (probably)

@NullVoxPopuli
Copy link
Author

Realizing that this would be helpful for seeing the total diff of the content-tag implementation

@NullVoxPopuli NullVoxPopuli merged commit 27257ea into embroider-build:main Nov 12, 2024
17 of 19 checks passed
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.