Fix: Remove incorrect PUTFIELD owner check when inspecting initialisers.
#672
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
…sers. These will never match because the LHS is the mixin name and the RHS is the target name. This restores the 0.8.5 behaviour which does not check the owner at all. We have never supported assignment expressions in initialisers until now anyway, and even if we check the owner we cannot determine whether the instruction is operating on the current *instance* without proper static analysis, so IMO there's not much point bothering.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
These will never match because the LHS is the mixin name and the RHS is the target name. This restores the 0.8.5 behaviour which does not check the owner at all. We have never supported assignment expressions in initialisers until now anyway, and even if we check the owner we cannot determine whether the instruction is operating on the current instance without proper static analysis, so IMO there's not much point bothering.