[ConstraintSystem] Allow binding metatypes to succeed if one contains a hole #28116
Conversation
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
| @@ -3399,6 +3399,13 @@ bool ConstraintSystem::repairFailures( | |||
| break; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| case ConstraintLocator::InstanceType: { | |||
| if (lhs->hasUnresolvedType() || rhs->hasUnresolvedType()) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of checking unresolved type directly should be actually frame it in terms of a hole e.g. ->hasHole()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can add hasHole that does the same thing as hasUnresolvedType. I considered that for the last PR, but didn't know if it was worth having two methods that do the same thing. I do think we should rename it at least once CSDiag is gone, as the only use for UnresolvedType will be for holes. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we better introduce hasHole sooner than later because that gives up a clear distinction here. We can then remove hasUnresolvedType completely when the time comes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Though, if I do add hasHole now, I'd prefer to do that in my refactoring PR, so that this specific PR isn't renaming a bunch of stuff
|
@benlangmuir oops, yes. Thank you! |
hborla
force-pushed
the
same-type-regression
branch
from
9e8f5d0 to
b560261
Compare
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
preset=buildbot,tools=R,stdlib=RD |
|
On the note about the tests, I think we should do a requisition and remove |
rdar://problem/56942731