Sema: Fix assertion when performing conformance check of protocol in another file #8107
Conversation
This file contains 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
…another file GenericSignature::getConformanceAccessPath() would call computeRequirementSignature() if the protocol did not already have one. If this happened before the protocol was validated with validateDecl(), then we would hit an assertion because validateDecl() calls computeRequirementSignature() unconditionally. Change validateDecl() to only call computeRequirementSignature() if the protocol does not already have a requirement signature. Progress on <rdar://problem/30817732>.
|
@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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
GenericSignature::getConformanceAccessPath() would call
computeRequirementSignature() if the protocol did not already
have one.
If this happened before the protocol was validated with
validateDecl(), then we would hit an assertion because
validateDecl() calls computeRequirementSignature()
unconditionally.
Change validateDecl() to only call computeRequirementSignature()
if the protocol does not already have a requirement signature.
Progress on rdar://problem/30817732.