[GSB] Canonicalize conformance access paths on-the-fly. #13424
Conversation
When forming a conformance access path, remove from consideration any requirement sources that contain protocol requirements that aren't found in the requirement signature. This ensure well-formedness of the resulting conformance access path. Huge thanks to Slava for reducing this one, and apologies to Arnold for having to track it down a second time before I fixed it. Fixes SR-6200 / rdar://problem/35113583.
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility |
If we used the requirement signature to create a protocol requirement element in a requirement source, there's no need to verify that it's from the requirement signature (duh).
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility |
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility |
| Type subjectType, | ||
| ProtocolDecl *proto) { | ||
| // Make sure this requirement exists in the requirement signature. | ||
| for (const auto& req: requirements) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're referring to the spacing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I'll fix the spacing in a separate PR)
| @@ -936,9 +936,11 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final | |||
| /// Whether there is a trailing written requirement location. | |||
| const bool hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc; | |||
|
|
|||
| public: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this need to be public?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's used from a static function. It's const, so there's no concern about anyone messing with the state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... although this makes me wonder if I could back-patch the value when it is found to map into the requirement signature, to prevent future work. Feels icky.
|
Source compatibility suite issues are the same as on master, and should be addressed by #13427 |
When forming a conformance access path, remove from consideration any
requirement sources that contain protocol requirements that aren't
found in the requirement signature. This ensure well-formedness of the
resulting conformance access path. Huge thanks to Slava for reducing
this one, and apologies to Arnold for having to track it down a second
time before I fixed it.
Fixes SR-6200 / rdar://problem/35113583.