diff --git a/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h b/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
index 4e4ec38..73296d5 100644
--- a/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
+++ b/objectivec/google/protobuf/FieldMask.pbobjc.h
@@ -1,27 +1,51 @@
 // Generated by the protocol buffer compiler.  DO NOT EDIT!
 // source: google/protobuf/field_mask.proto
 
-#import "GPBProtocolBuffers.h"
+// This CPP symbol can be defined to use imports that match up to the framework
+// imports needed when using CocoaPods.
+#if !defined(GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS)
+ #define GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS 0
+#endif
 
-#if GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_GEN_VERSION != 30000
-#error This file was generated by a different version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
+#if GPB_USE_PROTOBUF_FRAMEWORK_IMPORTS
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBDescriptor.h>
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBMessage.h>
+ #import <Protobuf/GPBRootObject.h>
+#else
+ #import "GPBDescriptor.h"
+ #import "GPBMessage.h"
+ #import "GPBRootObject.h"
+#endif
+
+#if GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_VERSION < 30002
+#error This file was generated by a newer version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
+#endif
+#if 30002 < GOOGLE_PROTOBUF_OBJC_MIN_SUPPORTED_VERSION
+#error This file was generated by an older version of protoc which is incompatible with your Protocol Buffer library sources.
 #endif
 
 // @@protoc_insertion_point(imports)
 
+#pragma clang diagnostic push
+#pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
+
 CF_EXTERN_C_BEGIN
 
 NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_BEGIN
 
 #pragma mark - GPBFieldMaskRoot
 
+/**
+ * Exposes the extension registry for this file.
+ *
+ * The base class provides:
+ * @code
+ *   + (GPBExtensionRegistry *)extensionRegistry;
+ * @endcode
+ * which is a @c GPBExtensionRegistry that includes all the extensions defined by
+ * this file and all files that it depends on.
+ **/
 @interface GPBFieldMaskRoot : GPBRootObject
-
-// The base class provides:
-//   + (GPBExtensionRegistry *)extensionRegistry;
-// which is an GPBExtensionRegistry that includes all the extensions defined by
-// this file and all files that it depends on.
-
 @end
 
 #pragma mark - GPBFieldMask
@@ -30,133 +54,220 @@
   GPBFieldMask_FieldNumber_PathsArray = 1,
 };
 
-// `FieldMask` represents a set of symbolic field paths, for example:
-//
-//     paths: "f.a"
-//     paths: "f.b.d"
-//
-// Here `f` represents a field in some root message, `a` and `b`
-// fields in the message found in `f`, and `d` a field found in the
-// message in `f.b`.
-//
-// Field masks are used to specify a subset of fields that should be
-// returned by a get operation or modified by an update operation.
-// Field masks also have a custom JSON encoding (see below).
-//
-// # Field Masks in Projections
-//
-// When used in the context of a projection, a response message or
-// sub-message is filtered by the API to only contain those fields as
-// specified in the mask. For example, if the mask in the previous
-// example is applied to a response message as follows:
-//
-//     f {
-//       a : 22
-//       b {
-//         d : 1
-//         x : 2
-//       }
-//       y : 13
-//     }
-//     z: 8
-//
-// The result will not contain specific values for fields x,y and z
-// (their value will be set to the default, and omitted in proto text
-// output):
-//
-//
-//     f {
-//       a : 22
-//       b {
-//         d : 1
-//       }
-//     }
-//
-// A repeated field is not allowed except at the last position of a
-// field mask.
-//
-// If a FieldMask object is not present in a get operation, the
-// operation applies to all fields (as if a FieldMask of all fields
-// had been specified).
-//
-// Note that a field mask does not necessarily applies to the
-// top-level response message. In case of a REST get operation, the
-// field mask applies directly to the response, but in case of a REST
-// list operation, the mask instead applies to each individual message
-// in the returned resource list. In case of a REST custom method,
-// other definitions may be used. Where the mask applies will be
-// clearly documented together with its declaration in the API.  In
-// any case, the effect on the returned resource/resources is required
-// behavior for APIs.
-//
-// # Field Masks in Update Operations
-//
-// A field mask in update operations specifies which fields of the
-// targeted resource are going to be updated. The API is required
-// to only change the values of the fields as specified in the mask
-// and leave the others untouched. If a resource is passed in to
-// describe the updated values, the API ignores the values of all
-// fields not covered by the mask.
-//
-// In order to reset a field's value to the default, the field must
-// be in the mask and set to the default value in the provided resource.
-// Hence, in order to reset all fields of a resource, provide a default
-// instance of the resource and set all fields in the mask, or do
-// not provide a mask as described below.
-//
-// If a field mask is not present on update, the operation applies to
-// all fields (as if a field mask of all fields has been specified).
-// Note that in the presence of schema evolution, this may mean that
-// fields the client does not know and has therefore not filled into
-// the request will be reset to their default. If this is unwanted
-// behavior, a specific service may require a client to always specify
-// a field mask, producing an error if not.
-//
-// As with get operations, the location of the resource which
-// describes the updated values in the request message depends on the
-// operation kind. In any case, the effect of the field mask is
-// required to be honored by the API.
-//
-// ## Considerations for HTTP REST
-//
-// The HTTP kind of an update operation which uses a field mask must
-// be set to PATCH instead of PUT in order to satisfy HTTP semantics
-// (PUT must only be used for full updates).
-//
-// # JSON Encoding of Field Masks
-//
-// In JSON, a field mask is encoded as a single string where paths are
-// separated by a comma. Fields name in each path are converted
-// to/from lower-camel naming conventions.
-//
-// As an example, consider the following message declarations:
-//
-//     message Profile {
-//       User user = 1;
-//       Photo photo = 2;
-//     }
-//     message User {
-//       string display_name = 1;
-//       string address = 2;
-//     }
-//
-// In proto a field mask for `Profile` may look as such:
-//
-//     mask {
-//       paths: "user.display_name"
-//       paths: "photo"
-//     }
-//
-// In JSON, the same mask is represented as below:
-//
-//     {
-//       mask: "user.displayName,photo"
-//     }
+/**
+ * `FieldMask` represents a set of symbolic field paths, for example:
+ *
+ *     paths: "f.a"
+ *     paths: "f.b.d"
+ *
+ * Here `f` represents a field in some root message, `a` and `b`
+ * fields in the message found in `f`, and `d` a field found in the
+ * message in `f.b`.
+ *
+ * Field masks are used to specify a subset of fields that should be
+ * returned by a get operation or modified by an update operation.
+ * Field masks also have a custom JSON encoding (see below).
+ *
+ * # Field Masks in Projections
+ *
+ * When used in the context of a projection, a response message or
+ * sub-message is filtered by the API to only contain those fields as
+ * specified in the mask. For example, if the mask in the previous
+ * example is applied to a response message as follows:
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       a : 22
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 1
+ *         x : 2
+ *       }
+ *       y : 13
+ *     }
+ *     z: 8
+ *
+ * The result will not contain specific values for fields x,y and z
+ * (their value will be set to the default, and omitted in proto text
+ * output):
+ *
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       a : 22
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 1
+ *       }
+ *     }
+ *
+ * A repeated field is not allowed except at the last position of a
+ * paths string.
+ *
+ * If a FieldMask object is not present in a get operation, the
+ * operation applies to all fields (as if a FieldMask of all fields
+ * had been specified).
+ *
+ * Note that a field mask does not necessarily apply to the
+ * top-level response message. In case of a REST get operation, the
+ * field mask applies directly to the response, but in case of a REST
+ * list operation, the mask instead applies to each individual message
+ * in the returned resource list. In case of a REST custom method,
+ * other definitions may be used. Where the mask applies will be
+ * clearly documented together with its declaration in the API.  In
+ * any case, the effect on the returned resource/resources is required
+ * behavior for APIs.
+ *
+ * # Field Masks in Update Operations
+ *
+ * A field mask in update operations specifies which fields of the
+ * targeted resource are going to be updated. The API is required
+ * to only change the values of the fields as specified in the mask
+ * and leave the others untouched. If a resource is passed in to
+ * describe the updated values, the API ignores the values of all
+ * fields not covered by the mask.
+ *
+ * If a repeated field is specified for an update operation, the existing
+ * repeated values in the target resource will be overwritten by the new values.
+ * Note that a repeated field is only allowed in the last position of a `paths`
+ * string.
+ *
+ * If a sub-message is specified in the last position of the field mask for an
+ * update operation, then the existing sub-message in the target resource is
+ * overwritten. Given the target message:
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 1
+ *         x : 2
+ *       }
+ *       c : 1
+ *     }
+ *
+ * And an update message:
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 10
+ *       }
+ *     }
+ *
+ * then if the field mask is:
+ *
+ *  paths: "f.b"
+ *
+ * then the result will be:
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 10
+ *       }
+ *       c : 1
+ *     }
+ *
+ * However, if the update mask was:
+ *
+ *  paths: "f.b.d"
+ *
+ * then the result would be:
+ *
+ *     f {
+ *       b {
+ *         d : 10
+ *         x : 2
+ *       }
+ *       c : 1
+ *     }
+ *
+ * In order to reset a field's value to the default, the field must
+ * be in the mask and set to the default value in the provided resource.
+ * Hence, in order to reset all fields of a resource, provide a default
+ * instance of the resource and set all fields in the mask, or do
+ * not provide a mask as described below.
+ *
+ * If a field mask is not present on update, the operation applies to
+ * all fields (as if a field mask of all fields has been specified).
+ * Note that in the presence of schema evolution, this may mean that
+ * fields the client does not know and has therefore not filled into
+ * the request will be reset to their default. If this is unwanted
+ * behavior, a specific service may require a client to always specify
+ * a field mask, producing an error if not.
+ *
+ * As with get operations, the location of the resource which
+ * describes the updated values in the request message depends on the
+ * operation kind. In any case, the effect of the field mask is
+ * required to be honored by the API.
+ *
+ * ## Considerations for HTTP REST
+ *
+ * The HTTP kind of an update operation which uses a field mask must
+ * be set to PATCH instead of PUT in order to satisfy HTTP semantics
+ * (PUT must only be used for full updates).
+ *
+ * # JSON Encoding of Field Masks
+ *
+ * In JSON, a field mask is encoded as a single string where paths are
+ * separated by a comma. Fields name in each path are converted
+ * to/from lower-camel naming conventions.
+ *
+ * As an example, consider the following message declarations:
+ *
+ *     message Profile {
+ *       User user = 1;
+ *       Photo photo = 2;
+ *     }
+ *     message User {
+ *       string display_name = 1;
+ *       string address = 2;
+ *     }
+ *
+ * In proto a field mask for `Profile` may look as such:
+ *
+ *     mask {
+ *       paths: "user.display_name"
+ *       paths: "photo"
+ *     }
+ *
+ * In JSON, the same mask is represented as below:
+ *
+ *     {
+ *       mask: "user.displayName,photo"
+ *     }
+ *
+ * # Field Masks and Oneof Fields
+ *
+ * Field masks treat fields in oneofs just as regular fields. Consider the
+ * following message:
+ *
+ *     message SampleMessage {
+ *       oneof test_oneof {
+ *         string name = 4;
+ *         SubMessage sub_message = 9;
+ *       }
+ *     }
+ *
+ * The field mask can be:
+ *
+ *     mask {
+ *       paths: "name"
+ *     }
+ *
+ * Or:
+ *
+ *     mask {
+ *       paths: "sub_message"
+ *     }
+ *
+ * Note that oneof type names ("test_oneof" in this case) cannot be used in
+ * paths.
+ *
+ * ## Field Mask Verification
+ *
+ * The implementation of any API method which has a FieldMask type field in the
+ * request should verify the included field paths, and return an
+ * `INVALID_ARGUMENT` error if any path is duplicated or unmappable.
+ **/
 @interface GPBFieldMask : GPBMessage
 
-// The set of field mask paths.
-// |pathsArray| contains |NSString|
-@property(nonatomic, readwrite, strong, null_resettable) NSMutableArray *pathsArray;
+/** The set of field mask paths. */
+@property(nonatomic, readwrite, strong, null_resettable) NSMutableArray<NSString*> *pathsArray;
+/** The number of items in @c pathsArray without causing the array to be created. */
 @property(nonatomic, readonly) NSUInteger pathsArray_Count;
 
 @end
@@ -165,4 +276,6 @@
 
 CF_EXTERN_C_END
 
+#pragma clang diagnostic pop
+
 // @@protoc_insertion_point(global_scope)