Skip to content
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

Revert "Add type avoidance to inferred MT bound lubbing" #22666

Closed

Conversation

WojciechMazur
Copy link
Contributor

@WojciechMazur WojciechMazur commented Feb 25, 2025

This partially reverts #22142 from Scala 3.6.4

Withdraws regressions observed in #22661 until proper fix would be available in 3.7

@WojciechMazur
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dwijnand @sjrd @odersky @Gedochao

Anyone against this change to release 3.6.4? We were not able to find a proper fix before the cutoff for backports, so we'd like to give us more time so it can be fixed in 3.7.
This PR does not revert whole PR, but only a single commit.
After testing with OpenCB (with addition of changes from #22653) we have not found any new regressions and were able to make the project compile. However, based on discussion it might not be obvious if the old behaviour should be restored or not. #22661 (comment)
Even if we decide that new behaviour should stay in 3.7, I personally believe that we should preserve the old behaviour for the last 3.6 release.

@WojciechMazur WojciechMazur marked this pull request as ready for review February 25, 2025 13:42
@smarter
Copy link
Member

smarter commented Feb 25, 2025

Before this was fixed, I observed compiler crashes in pickling due to local symbols escaping, reverting this is likely to reintroduce these crashes.

@sjrd
Copy link
Member

sjrd commented Feb 25, 2025

The fix here was fixing a very obvious and serious problem with type variables used outside of their defining scope. I don't think reverting is a good idea.

@dwijnand
Copy link
Member

Yeah, we shouldn't revert this.

@WojciechMazur WojciechMazur deleted the revert-3.6.4/22142 branch February 25, 2025 23:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants