-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.8k
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 virtual static dispatch for variant interfaces when using default implementations #88639
Conversation
…ike variant interface default method dispatch
…plementationException
@@ -8911,7 +8912,7 @@ MethodTable::ResolveVirtualStaticMethod( | |||
// Search for match on a per-level in the type hierarchy | |||
for (MethodTable* pMT = this; pMT != nullptr; pMT = pMT->GetParentMethodTable()) |
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.
Shouldn't this parent type descent also be in a 2-pass loop over allowVariance = FALSE, TRUE
when allowVariantMatches
is set i.o.w. shouldn't it also be in the below loop used for default interface resolution?
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.
Hmm, after getting my head around the tests I take it back, the variant lookup should take place before descending into parent.
@@ -8955,7 +8956,7 @@ MethodTable::ResolveVirtualStaticMethod( | |||
{ | |||
// Variant or equivalent matching interface found | |||
// Attempt to resolve on variance matched interface | |||
pMD = pMT->TryResolveVirtualStaticMethodOnThisType(pItfInMap, pInterfaceMD, verifyImplemented, level); | |||
pMD = pMT->TryResolveVirtualStaticMethodOnThisType(pItfInMap, pInterfaceMD, verifyImplemented, /*allowVariance*/ FALSE, level); |
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.
Shouldn't we be setting allowVariance
to TRUE
(or perhaps to allowVariantMatches
) here? Otherwise I don't see where we are supposed to be performing the variant resolution in this method; can you please explain to me what am I missing?
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.
Alternatively, if it's the case that in practice all variant resolution is only limited to the default interface implementation case (which is probably correct), why do we need this additional pass over the interface map in this place?
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.
LGTM, thanks David! I had a bit of trouble getting my head around the exact code flow in SVM resolution but I now think it is actually correct.
@davidwrighton I didn't see the new test run with Mono - I think there might be some issue with the pipeline triggers when only a test changed. Could you touch some file in |
Fixes #78621