Compiler: fix unsoundness of getfield_tfunc on Tuple Types #57275
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
vtjnash
added
compiler:inference
32 tasks
|
Which sort of test do you want to see here? |
|
Presumably a test where |
vtjnash
added
merge me
This was noted in the original review of that PR, but was for some reason not fixed at that time: #46693 (comment)
oscardssmith
removed
the
merge me
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
This was noted in the original review of that PR by the PR author, but was for some reason not fixed at that time: #46693 (comment) (cherry picked from commit db874ff)
KristofferC
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
This was noted in the original review of that PR by the PR author, but was for some reason not fixed at that time: #46693 (comment) (cherry picked from commit db874ff)
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This was noted in the original review of that PR by the PR author, but was for some reason not fixed at that time: #46693 (comment)