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

Integrate changes from upstream/master #536

Merged
merged 6 commits into from Jun 24, 2015

Conversation

jtattermusch
Copy link
Contributor

Merge upstream/master. The changes seem orthogonal to C# efforts, so this shouldn't harm us at all.

Main reason to do this is to update appveyor.yml, which is broken in csharp-experimental, but works fine in master (appveyor gives us continous build of C++ under windows, so it's pretty useful to have this working).

thomasvl and others added 6 commits June 16, 2015 17:04
Add the clang annotations to the objc library and generated code to help with Swift bridging and compiler checks.
Add nonnull/nullable/null_resettable markup to ObjC library.
Update upb to fix two bugs in the Ruby library.
@googlebot
Copy link

We found a Contributor License Agreement for you (the sender of this pull request) and all commit authors, but as best as we can tell these commits were authored by someone else. If that's the case, please add them to this pull request and have them confirm that they're okay with these commits being contributed to Google. If we're mistaken and you did author these commits, just reply here to confirm.

@jtattermusch
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jskeet FYI

@jskeet
Copy link
Contributor

jskeet commented Jun 24, 2015

Are you going to merge this once it's finished checking, or are you after a review from me? I'll start looking at the other Travis issues...

@jtattermusch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hm, strange error. But at least appveyor has actually started the build and came up with some results.
I think we can merge this anyway and address the problems later.

@jtattermusch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Please merge if you agree.

@jskeet
Copy link
Contributor

jskeet commented Jun 24, 2015

I don't honestly know enough about Appveyor to have much idea - but I'll take your word for it that it makes things better.

I think the Travis failures are due to my wire_format.h change, and possibly the lack of regenerating the descriptor protos. Will fix the wire_format one now, rebase from this, and see whether the freeze PR gets better...

jskeet added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2015
Integrate changes from upstream/master
@jskeet jskeet merged commit 94071b5 into protocolbuffers:csharp-experimental Jun 24, 2015
@jtattermusch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, appveyor is like travis, but it runs the build on Windows. And it's probably good idea to have a way to check that the build of libprotoc and libprotobuf works alright on Windows as C# cares about Windows support more than the other languages.

taoso pushed a commit to taoso/protobuf that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2018
…rs#536)

As part of the recent protobuf optimization work, we started generating
Unmarshal and Marshal methods on generated messages. These were done to
support the table-driven implementation within the proto package.

We are renaming Marshal as XXX_Marshal and Unmarshal as XXX_Unmarshal
to make it clear that users are not supposed to call these directly.
There are several reasons for the rename:
* The Marshal method assumes that deterministic is the only option we
would ever support for protos, and is not very forward compatible.
* The presence of a deterministic boolean is confusing for users,
where many set it without considering whether it is necessary.
* The Unmarshal method has a slightly different semantic than the previously
documented proto.Unmarshaler interface. The documented Unmarshal specifies
that Reset is called, while the new method does no such thing. The semantic
difference warrants a rename of the method.
* Some users in the Go community depend on these methods not being
generated by default.

Fixes protocolbuffers#530
adellahlou pushed a commit to adellahlou/protobuf that referenced this pull request Apr 20, 2023
rinarakaki pushed a commit to rinarakaki/protobuf that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants