Sema: Fix regression with 'Failure' type witness inference hack #80511
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
We have a special hack to infer the 'Failure' type witness in 'AsyncIteratorProtocol' by considering the type of 'next()' witness. In eaf06ea I added a check to fix some assertions that could happen if 'next()' was witnessed by a declaration in a protocol extension or superclass, which has a different generic signature. However my check was too narrow, because it also prohibited this form of inference when 'next()' was in a different extension of the same nominal type. Allow this again. Fixes swiftlang#79367. Fixes rdar://problem/145341658.
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We have a special hack to infer the 'Failure' type witness in 'AsyncIteratorProtocol' by considering the type of 'next()' witness.
In eaf06ea I added a check to fix some assertions that could happen if 'next()' was witnessed by a declaration in a protocol extension or superclass, which has a different generic signature.
However my check was too narrow, because it also prohibited this form of inference when 'next()' was in a different extension of the same nominal type.
Allow this again.
Fixes #79367.
Fixes rdar://problem/145341658.