-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.5k
[Sema] Fix derived conformances crasher. #21785
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems cleaner then to say that the default constructor is a memberwise init in this case. Also, this could be a method on NominalTypeDecl instead of a top-level function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, both of those points make sense. I was hesitant to make those two changes (editing
NominalTypeDecl
anddefineDefaultConstructor
) and diverging from master.What do you recommend? I can make those two changes, mark with
SWIFT_ENABLE_TENSORFLOW
, and upstream to master later (but without any tests).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the fact that the default init will become a memberwise init rather than have a body can be observed with a -dump-ast or -emit-silgen rest. If this helps you proceed I don’t see any problem upstreamg it now
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm sorry, could you please be specific what changes you'd like to see? I'm a bit hazy so that'd be much appreciated!
Are you suggesting that the logic in
getMemberwiseInitializer
(introduced by this PR) be changed so that default constructors are also considered memberwise initializers? Or thatdefaultDefaultConstructor
should mark all returned constructors as memberwise initializers?Some observations:
getMemberwiseInitializer
returns a constructor whose parameter count is equal to the number of stored properties in the nominal type. Marking default constructors (which take zero parameters) as memberwise initializers changes this contract and would complicate caller code.isMemberwiseInitializer()
for default initializers. We could check other conditions likeisSynthesized()
, but those aren't necessarily accurate (other initializers could be synthesized).