[CSBindings] Literal coverage checking should account for type variab… #35701
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
…le/hole embedded in optional Currently `isLiteralCoveredBy` only checks for top-level type variable or hole. That check has to be sunk down so it could be used after optionality is stripped away (when possible), otherwise bindings like `$T0?` are (incorrectly) determined to cover literal requirements (because conformance check always succeeds when attempted on a type variable).
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility |
|
@swift-ci please test Windows platform |
|
@swift-ci please test source compatibility debug |
|
@hborla Source compatibility failure are unrelated to these changes and are due to changes in CFG (they happen in main branch as well). |
hborla
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2021
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
…le/hole embedded in optional
Currently
isLiteralCoveredByonly checks for top-level type variable or hole.That check has to be sunk down so it could be used after optionality is stripped
away (when possible), otherwise bindings like
$T0?are (incorrectly) determinedto cover literal requirements (because conformance check always succeeds when
attempted on a type variable).