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

Check the correct interface list in IsInterfaceImplementationMarkedRecursively #1429

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 12, 2020

Conversation

MichalStrehovsky
Copy link
Member

IsInterfaceImplementationMarkedRecursively was incorrectly rewritten from a global prepass to a local interface walk in #1186.

The new code was looking at the wrong interface list (looking at IBar's interface list instead of Bar). We need to keep looking at the same interface list that we started with.

Fixes #1421.

…cursively

`IsInterfaceImplementationMarkedRecursively` was incorrectly rewritten from a global prepass to a local interface walk in dotnet#1186.

The new code was looking at the wrong interface list (looking at `IBar`'s interface list instead of `Bar`). We need to keep looking at the same interface list that we started with.

Fixes dotnet#1421.
@MichalStrehovsky MichalStrehovsky merged commit fc5e4aa into dotnet:master Aug 12, 2020
@MichalStrehovsky MichalStrehovsky deleted the fix1421 branch August 12, 2020 07:46
tkapin pushed a commit to tkapin/runtime that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2023
…cursively (dotnet/linker#1429)

`IsInterfaceImplementationMarkedRecursively` was incorrectly rewritten from a global prepass to a local interface walk in dotnet/linker#1186.

The new code was looking at the wrong interface list (looking at `IBar`'s interface list instead of `Bar`). We need to keep looking at the same interface list that we started with.

Fixes dotnet/linker#1421.

Commit migrated from dotnet/linker@fc5e4aa
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.

Mismatch in keeping interfaces with explicit implementation
2 participants