SIL: Fix SILType::isLoweringOf() to correctly handle opaque archetypes #77299
+134
−6
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
This predicate is meant to ask if the loweredType is equal to `getLoweredType(pattern, formalType)` for *some* abstraction pattern. If the formal type contained an opaque archetype, we performed a different check, because we asked if loweredEqual is equal to `getLoweredType(AbstractionPattern(formalType), formalType)`. This caused a spurious SIL verifier failure when the payload of an existential contained an opaque archetype, because we lower the payload with the most general AbstractionPattern, so that @thin metatypes become @thick, etc. The regression test exercises this bug, and also another bug that was present in 6.0 but was already fixed on main by one of my earlier refactorings. Fixes rdar://problem/138655637.
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This predicate is meant to ask if the loweredType is equal to
getLoweredType(pattern, formalType)for some abstraction pattern.If the formal type contained an opaque archetype, we performed a different check, because we asked if loweredEqual is equal to
getLoweredType(AbstractionPattern(formalType), formalType).This caused a spurious SIL verifier failure when the payload of an existential contained an opaque archetype, because we lower the payload with the most general AbstractionPattern, so that
@thinmetatypes become@thick, etc.The regression test exercises this bug, and also another bug that was present in 6.0 but was already fixed on main by one of my earlier refactorings.
Fixes rdar://problem/138655637.