[6.0🍒] SILCloner: allow builtin conformances #72689
Merged
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
When cloning SIL, it's OK for conformances to Copyable or Escapable to be carried-over as a builtin conformance, rather than an abstract conformance. This is a workaround for a bug introduced in `6cd5468cceacc1d600c7dafdd4debc6740d1dfd6`. resolves rdar://125460667 (cherry picked from commit abae144)
|
@swift-ci please test |
|
@swift-ci test |
airspeedswift
approved these changes
Mar 29, 2024
|
|
@swift-ci please test Linux |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Explanation: Workaround an issue in the SILLinker where protocol conformances can become invalid, due to issues in SubstitutionMap when dealing with invertible protocols. This problem popped up after the change in #72580
Scope: Small; limited to replacing conformances only in SILCloner where the issue arises.
Issue: rdar://125460667
Original PR: #72683
Risk: Low.
Testing: Only existing regression testing. Reproducer is tricky to come-by.
Reviewer: @DougGregor