-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.5k
[6.0] SILGen: Ignore placeholders and missing methods during conformance emission #72915
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
Merged
tshortli
merged 1 commit into
swiftlang:release/6.0
from
tshortli:lazy-conformance-silgen-take-2-6.0
Apr 9, 2024
Merged
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Can we add asserts about that lazy type checking is enabled in these function bodies?
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 such an assert would be a liability in the future as we move towards more laziness by default in the compiler. In my opinion we should not assert unless we can guarantee that there is a fatal problem. We often have trouble building real-world projects with asserts compilers because of ambitious asserts, and this feels to me like it would be such an assert.
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.
IIUC, are you saying that we may already step on the
llvm_unreachable
case nowadays?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.
No, I'm saying that I think leaving an assert in here predicated on a flag would be too fragile to be worth it. This is not the appropriate stage of compilation to decide whether or not this condition is unexpected and crash the compiler. The condition that ought to be checked is "did we fail to emit this witness and also not emit a diagnostic?". That would be better done at a later stage, where we can assume that if we've made it that far we didn't emit any fatal diagnostics during SILGen.
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.
OK. I'm just a little bit concerning about the potential loss of the qualification and documentation capability of an
unreachable
statement without providing alternatives back in place.