mirror of
https://github.com/apple/swift.git
synced 2025-12-21 12:14:44 +01:00
7095953f84
When mangling a dependent protocol conformance ref, the mangler currently uses `0_` to mean an unknown index and `N_` to mean the index `N - 1`. Unfortunately, this is somewhat confused: `0_` is actually the mangling for index 1, and index 0 is supposed to be mangled as just `_`, so true indexes are actually offset by 2. So the first thing to do here is to clarify what's going on throughout the mangler, demangler, and ABI documentation. Also, the demangler attempts to produce a `DependentProtocolConformance*` node with the appropriate child nodes and an optional index payload. Unfortunately, demangle nodes cannot have both children and a value payload, so whenever it creates a node with an index payload, the demangler will assert. It does this whenever the mangled index is not 0; since (per above) the mangler always produces a non-zero mangled index in this production, the demangler will always assert when processing these. So clearly this is well-tested code, since +asserts builds will always trigger the demangler when mangling a name in the first place. To fix this, we need to make the index a child of the mangling node instead of its payload; at the same time, we can make it store the semantically correct index value and just introduce a new `UnknownIndex` node to handle the `0_` case. This is easy because all current clients ignore this information. Finally, due to an apparent copy-and-paste error, the demangler attempts to produce a `DependentProtocolConformanceRoot` node for associated protocol conformances; this is easily resolved. This fixes the crash in SR-10926 (rdar://51710424). The obscurity of this crash --- which originally made us think it might be related to Error self-conformance --- is because it is only triggered when a function signature takes advantage of a concrete-but-dependent retroactive conformance, which (to be both concrete and dependent) must furthermore be conditional. Testing the other cases besides a root conformance requires an even more obscure testcase.
5 lines
133 B
Swift
5 lines
133 B
Swift
public struct X { }
|
|
public struct Y { }
|
|
public struct ExternalGeneric<Argument> {}
|
|
public struct AnotherExternalGeneric<Argument> {}
|