[6.2] [Sema] Continue type-checking for body when preamble fails
#81554
Conversation
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
Skipping type-checking the body when the preamble fails to type-check seems to be more of a historical artifact than intentional behavior. Certain elements of the body may still get type-checked through request evaluation, and as such may introduce autoclosures that won't be properly contextualized. Make sure we continue type-checking the body even if the preamble fails. We already invalidate any variables bound in the element pattern, so downstream type-checking should be able to handle it just fine. This ensures autoclosures get contextualized, and that we're still able to provide semantic diagnostics for other issues in the body. rdar://136500008
hamishknight
added
🍒 release cherry pick
|
@swift-ci please test |
hborla
approved these changes
May 16, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
6.2 cherry-pick of #81540
forloopforloop type-checkingforloops are type-checked, but I don't actually think the risk is too bad since:let x = foo && barin the body of an invalid loop