[6.0][IncludeTreeFileSystem] Make dir_begin() work as expected in OverlayFileSystem #8688
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
…ileSystem Make `dir_begin()` in IncludeTreeFileSystem to return no_such_file_or_directory instead of operation_not_permitted. This allows OverlayFileSystem to correctly ignore IncludeTreeFileSystem layer and continue to search the layer below. rdar://127370903 (cherry picked from commit 43f4996)
|
@swift-ci please test |
fredriss
approved these changes
May 7, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Explanation: Allow directory iteration with an overlay file system that has clang include tree file system as one of its layer. This is needed for swift caching support when swift compilation looks for swift cross import overlay in a CAS file system.
Scope: Needed for swift caching support with cross module import
Issue: rdar://127370903
Original PR: #8675
Risk: Low. Affect swift caching only.
Testing: Unit tests.
Reviewer: @benlangmuir