don't construct array type for already typed nkBracket node
#24224
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
|
Thanks for your hard work on this PR! Hint: mm: orc; opt: speed; options: -d:release |
This was referenced Nov 3, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
fixes #23010, split from #24195
When resemming bracket nodes, the compiler currently unconditionally makes a new node with an array type based on the node. However the VM can generate bracket nodes with
seqtypes, which this erases. To fix this, if a bracket node already has a type, we still resem the bracket node, but don't construct a new type for it, instead using the type of the original node.A version of this was rejected that didn't resem the node at all if it was typed, but I can't find it. The difference with this one is that the individual elements are still resemmed.
This should fix the break caused by #24184 so we could redo it after this PR but it might still have issues, not to mention the related pre-existing issues like #22793, #12559 etc.