file uri scheme

Filed ticket number FB21327973 with sample test app demonstrating memory pressure with UnlitMaterial usage. Also seeing an Error on some images, although they are still being rendered on the device: IOSurface creation failed: e00002c2 parentID: 00000000 properties: { IOSurfaceAddress = 4380393472; IOSurfaceAllocSize = 20027995; IOSurfaceCacheMode = 0; IOSurfaceMapCacheAttribute = 1; IOSurfaceName = CMPhoto; IOSurfacePixelFormat = 1246774599; } IOSurface creation failed: e00002c2 parentID: 00000000 property: IOSurfaceCacheMode

I'd like to +1 the need for an official compatibility list. If you haven't already, you're welcome to file a bug on this and please send me the bug number if you do. However, I'm not sure that's something that’s likely to happen, as the main reason we use runtime checks like BGContinuedProcessingTaskRequest.Resources.gpu is that it gives the engineer team the flexibility to change what devices are supported (generally by expanding) without needing to worry about keeping the documentation in sync, particularly if the supported device set varies with OS version. Most of our APIs use this approach and don't explicitly describe what hardware they support. Case in point, the form here: (something like this, for example). ...is a specific exception because UIRequiredDeviceCapabilities is used for an install-time check of the entire app, not just a specific app feature. It's also tied to functionality that was inconsistently implemented across our product lines and system versions, which makes it much more

We attempted to run a burn-in test while connected to our MacBook Pro M4 Max, but this crashed about 10 minutes into testing. We tried to run a 2-hour burn-in on the M4 Max host while charging the battery from below 5%, running six bus-powered drives (via ATTO/Black Magic/IOmeter), hitting the RJ45 port for 2.5Gbps (via JPerf), and streaming at least 4K60Hz video content to two displays; however, the M4 Max crashed in 20minutes. If you haven't already, please file a bug on this and post the bug number back here. In the bug, please attach full panic logs as well as a sysdiagnose from the machine that panic-ed. One comment on the log picture you posted. That particular panic message (Halt/Restart Timed Out) comes from a very specific point, which you can actually see here: xnu/iokit/Kernel/IOPlatformExpert.cpp: ... IOShutdownNotificationsTimedOut( thread_call_param_t p0, thread_call_param_t p1) { #if !defined(__x86_64__) /* 30 seconds has elapsed - panic */ panic(Halt/Restart Timed Out); ... Critically

Even with the new Xcode (not release candidate), I get error when uploading from Xcode: Validation Failed: This bundle is invalid. Apple is not currently accepting applications built with this version of Xcode. This is with Xcode 26.2 which has Released December 12, 2025 and Build 17C52. Also, the file name is Xcode_26.2_Apple_silicon.xip.

The bug above (FB14934250) was filed against iOS 17.6.1. If this is happening on iOS 26, please file a new bug that includes a sysdiagnose from the currently shipping system __ Kevin Elliott DTS Engineer, CoreOS/Hardware

Thank you for your post. If you disagree with the outcome of the review, we recommend submitting an appeal to the App Review Board. When filing your appeal, make sure to: Provide specific reasons why you believe your app complies with the App Review Guidelines. Submit only one appeal per rejection. Respond to any requests for additional information before submitting an appeal. Once you have submitted the appeal we can escalate it to the App Review Board for review. The App Review Board will contact you directly as soon as they've completed their investigation.

Is there a guide for macOS on the steps you describe at the end, that is on how to allocate a swapfile, Just to be clear, you're not actually creating a swapfile as such. Your mapping a file into memory which means, assuming the mapping MAP_SHARED, the VM system will then use that file as the backing store for that memory range. That gives you basically the same behavior as swap backed system memory, but it isn't ACTUALLY the same as using true swap (for example, you'll be writing the data directly back to file, so there won't be any compression or VM level encryption). mmap that swapfile into memory, mmap is a standard Unix API, which means we don't really provide specific documentation for it, however, there is an old code snippet here showing how it works. One note I will note is that some of the recommendations there aren't really relevant anymore, particularly any recommendation about limiting mapping size. Those concerns where driven by the limited 32-bit address space, but th

I also have the same problem on a MacStudio M1Max (and not on a MBP M1Max) after upgrading to Xcode 26.1.1: no MetalToolchain accessible from this application. Running on Tahoe 26.1 Running today xcodebuild -downloadComponent metalToolchain gives: `Beginning asset download... Downloaded asset to: /System/Library/AssetsV2/com_apple_MobileAsset_MetalToolchain/68d8db6212b48d387d071ff7b905df796658e713.asset/AssetData/Restore/022-20369-066.dmg Done downloading: Metal Toolchain 17B54.` Then when I run xcrun metal --version, I got an error message: error: error: cannot execute tool 'metal' due to missing Metal Toolchain; use: xcodebuild -downloadComponent MetalToolchain Last when I run: xcodebuild -showComponent metalToolchain, I got: 2025-12-12 18:34:14.045 xcodebuild[27394:1591467] IDEDownloadableMetalToolchainCoordinator: Failed to remount the Metal Toolchain: The file “com.apple.MobileAsset.MetalToolchain-v17.2.54.0.BttmuJ” couldn’t be opened because you don’t have permission to view it. 2025-12-12 18:3

Thank you for your post. If you disagree with the outcome of the review, we recommend submitting an appeal to the App Review Board. When filing your appeal, please ensure that you provide specific reasons why you believe your app complies with the App Review Guidelines. Additionally, please submit only one appeal per rejection. It is also important to respond to any requests for additional information before submitting an appeal. Once you have submitted the appeal, we can escalate it to the App Review Board for review. The App Review Board will contact you directly as soon as they have completed their investigation. App Review is not in the forums, only engineers are answering questions in this place is for questions about the API and frameworks. Use this link for the app review: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/app-review/appeal/ Good luck and hope to see your app in the store soon. Albert Pascual
  Worldwide Developer Relations.

Apps cannot initiate any AV sessions while in the background, and definitely not when they are not running. Critical alerts are handled by the system, and the app has no control over the sounds once the notification is created. What you can do is, perform the TTS beforehand, create a sound file with the required speech, and use that sound file as the sound for the critical alert. While you can technically do this in a Notification Service Extension - to create the sound file locally - it might be a practical challenge due to the memory and time limits imposed on extensions. The solution I could suggest would be to have your push notification server to create the TTS sound file, pass on the URL for this sound file in the notification payload, and then have your Notification Service Extension to download this file and reconstruct the critical alert notification using the downloaded file. If you want to try to create the sound file locally,

I am including a picture of the contents of the RiotPad ipa zip file (minus all graphic files) that was created for upload that is giving these errors.

First up, you’re correct that there’s a contradiction here: Apple has effectively deprecated the file-base keychain in favour of the data protection keychain. But the Personal Team limits, which come from iOS, run counter to the expectations of macOS developers. I don’t have any answers for you on that front, but if you file a bug describing this contradiction and post the bug number here, I’ll make sure that the relevant folks see it. Coming back to your real issue, there’s a lot to unpack there and I don’t have time to dig into it all. However, you seem to have bumped into a pretty fundamental limitation: You want the system to protect your item such that only your program can access it. But you’re not giving it any code-signing credentials to do that. Something has to give. The file-based keychain has a bunch of legacy access control centred around code-signing requirements — see TN3127 Inside Code Signing: Requirements — so that’s one thing you might explore. But that still requ