-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 842
Fix 9449 #9456
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 9449 #9456
Conversation
|
Unfortunately CI did not test this fix properly - the "green tick" ✔️ was a false one as no tests ran. I'll have to look at this more closely now |
|
There is one test that is failing at the moment. |
TIHan
left a comment
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.
Approved - pending test passes.
RIght, that's because the fix didn't work :-))) I've pushed a different fix, let's see if this one is green. The same code is removed, but the problem that code was addressing is now dealt with differently. Notes:
Basically when you have a complicated tangle of constraints involving a bunch of type parameters there needs to be simultaneous processing here |
* alternative fix for 9449 * add test case * fix 9449 properly by assert type equations simultaneously
While integrating #6810 into #6811 a regression turned up.
The problem lies in the fact that an extra constraint is being asserted during optimization. The relevant lines of #6810 are things like this and [this]. The tril fix removes these lines which were not needed. Extra constraints should not need to be asserted and this addition later in the development of #6810 meant these other two changes are not needed.
TODO:
Note the regression is active even if
langversionis not set, which also indicates some inaccurate coding in #6810