Skip to content

GSB: Watch out for a concrete ResolvedType in ArchetypeType::resolveNestedType #33859

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

Conversation

AnthonyLatsis
Copy link
Collaborator

@AnthonyLatsis AnthonyLatsis commented Sep 8, 2020

Resolves SR-13519

The regression was caused by 653fa07, apparently. Under certain conditions, maybeResolveEquivalenceClass would look into the superclass of the base equiv. class to find a nested type, resulting in a concrete ResolvedType that is not associated with an equivalence class. resolveEquivalenceClass and at least one of its clients were not expecting this to happen.

Comment on lines +2637 to 2641
/*wantExactPotentialArchetype=*/false);
if (!resolved) {
nested.second = ErrorType::get(interfaceType);
return;
}
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we assert instead?

@slavapestov slavapestov self-assigned this Sep 9, 2020
@shahmishal
Copy link
Member

Please update the base branch to main by Oct 5th otherwise the pull request will be closed automatically.

  • How to change the base branch: (Link)
  • More detail about the branch update: (Link)

@AnthonyLatsis AnthonyLatsis changed the base branch from master to main October 1, 2020 06:24
@AnthonyLatsis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@slavapestov ping

@slavapestov
Copy link
Contributor

I'll take a look at this shortly. I think another dupe of this came in recently.

@AnthonyLatsis
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sorry for the pinging, I somehow missed you self-assigned this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants