[RFC] Fix potential seqfault in testing for ambiguity#24706
Closed
[RFC] Fix potential seqfault in testing for ambiguity#24706
Conversation
Member
Author
|
@timholy this turns your assertion error into: |
Member
|
I will have a look in the next few days. Many thanks for tackling this! |
2 tasks
Member
|
I'll see if I can get a better fix working (making |
Member
|
replaced by #25495 |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 #24460
jl_gf_invoke_lookupseqfaults on aUnionAllsince that has no fieldparameters,I think it was originally intended to just take a tuple type.
Base.rewrap_unionallonly returns aUnionAllifm.sigis aUnionAllso I suspectthat this codepath was just never tested with a
UnionAllcc: @timholy