AST: Fix ReplaceOpaqueTypesWithUnderlyingTypes to consider the current resilience expansion in non resilient mode #70770
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
…t resilience expansion in non resilient mode When we decide which access level we can allow for types we need to consider the resilience expansion context. 'internal' visibility cannot be allowed to be looked through in inlineable code as an external module does not have visiblity to such a symbol. rdar://119725428
aschwaighofer
requested review from
hborla,
slavapestov and
xedin
as code owners
|
@swift-ci test |
slavapestov
reviewed
Jan 8, 2024
| @@ -1056,7 +1057,8 @@ static bool canSubstituteTypeInto(Type ty, const DeclContext *dc, | |||
|
|
|||
| case OpaqueSubstitutionKind::SubstituteNonResilientModule: | |||
| // Can't access types that are not public from a different module. | |||
| if (dc->getParentModule() == typeDecl->getDeclContext()->getParentModule()) | |||
| if (dc->getParentModule() == typeDecl->getDeclContext()->getParentModule() && | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this condition is the same as if (typeDecl->isResilient(contextExpansion)) no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't believe so:
We arrive at this if statement with the assumption SubstituteNonResilientModule (the naming decl of the opaque type is in a non-resilient module).
This means thetypeDecl->isResilient(dc->getParentModule(), contextExpansion) code would return false if dc->getParentModule() == typeDecl->getDeclContext()->getParentModule() and contextExpansion == ResilienceExpansion::Maximal.
bool NominalTypeDecl::isResilient() const {
if (!isFormallyResilient())
return false;
return getModuleContext()->isResilient(); // would also return false but we don't get here
}
bool NominalTypeDecl::isResilient(ModuleDecl *M,
ResilienceExpansion expansion) const {
switch (expansion) {
case ResilienceExpansion::Minimal:
return isResilient();
case ResilienceExpansion::Maximal:
// We can access declarations from the same module
// non-resiliently in a maximal context.
if (M == getModuleContext()) {
return false; // <<< === will return false
}
...
// Otherwise, we have to access the declaration resiliently if it's
// resilient anywhere.
return isResilient();
}
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.
When we decide which access level we can allow for types we need to consider the resilience expansion context. 'internal' visibility cannot be allowed to be looked through in inlineable code as an external module does not have visiblity to such a symbol.
rdar://119725428