Enforce that checkConformance() is not called with interface types #70990
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
slavapestov
requested review from
AnthonyLatsis,
ahoppen,
bnbarham,
hamishknight,
hborla,
rintaro and
xedin
as code owners
Contributor
Author
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility. |
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
check-conformance-invariant
branch
from
642ba6e to
9835a6f
Compare
slavapestov
removed request for
AnthonyLatsis,
ahoppen,
bnbarham,
hamishknight,
hborla,
rintaro and
xedin
Contributor
Author
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
Contributor
Author
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
Contributor
Author
|
The Result failure in source compat is not related to this PR. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #70968.
After all the cleanups, here it is: we can now completely ban interface types in checkConformance(). The behavior with conditional conformances was confusing because we would return false if any conditional requirements involved these type parameters. The correct fix is to use
lookupConformance()or first callmapTypeIntoContext()or apply a substitution map.