-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 419
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix NullablePointer type constraint check being omitted in FFI declarations #3758
Conversation
I am going to defer to @jemc on this one. This isn't my areas of expertise. |
Hi @ergl, The changelog - fixed label was added to this pull request; all PRs with a changelog label need to have release notes included as part of the PR. If you haven't added release notes already, please do. Release notes are added by creating a uniquely named file in the The basic format of the release notes (using markdown) should be:
Thanks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good catch!
@ergl do you think this is deserving of a release ahead of schedule? |
@SeanTAllen Although the original issue should only result in the compiler crashing, I had cases where compiling the offending code in debug mode produced a segfaulting binary, so I'd go with probably yes |
@ergl ok. once this gets release notes, and is merged, i'll do a release this weekend. |
…FI declarations This commit makes the expr pre check for use commands more fine-grained: we're only interested in ignoring the "guard" part of a use command, but we still want to go through the arguments to check for any possible errors during the expr pass. In particular, we're interested in the NullablePointer constraint check.
We're only interested in ignoring the "guard" part of a use command, but
we still want to go through the arguments to check for any possible
errors during the expr pass. In particular, we're interested in the
NullablePointer constraint check.
043dbb1 added the original code that ignored
use
statements during theexpr
pass.I don't know the specific rationale, but it seems we can do this check in a more fine-grained manner so that the rest of a
use
statement goes through the expr pass.Fixes #3757
Edit: I made this a draft PR since I'm sure there could be a better way of doing this if I understood the reason for ignoring
use
statements.