rubenpieters

Hello @dannygonzalez I can observe the crash in the project you linked. However changing the version from proguard 7.4 to 7.3.2 in `proguard-issue/pom.xml` and `lib/pom.xml` does not resolve the crash...

Thanks for explaining it further. I can indeed confirm it is a regression in proguard-core 9.0.9 compared to 9.0.8 . We have scheduled to look at this internally to see...

Can you provide some timings for a few applications: how big the applications are and how much time this inlining pass takes?

Can you add a few tests for this class and its use with the iterator/iterable interface?

@AnyhowStep Narrowing the type parameter `T` to `"t"` or `"f"` is unsound. Consider this situation: ```ts function f(x: T, y: T) { if (x === 't') { y // has...

@fatcerberus It is similar to lower bounds, in that the bound is applicable only in a very limited scope: the indexed access type of a function return type. Adding a...

@fatcerberus I don't think lower bounds by themselves create unsoundness. The problem arises when creating interaction between lower bounds and the indexed access simplification. For example in the example below,...

Indeed. If we do want to handle narrowing of generic indexed access inside a structure, we do have to take care to only handle the positive positions. Otherwise we get...

After experimenting more with this, I feel that limiting the implementation to the `checkReturnStatement` is something that will be too brittle to work for more complex cases. For example, the...

@miginmrs This is covered in the **Workaround** section. As far as I can see, your workaround is unsafe as mentioned. The compiler does not prevent incorrect implementations of `depLikeFun`, essentially...