Successful conjunction should preseve a score set by a follow-up
solve with outer context. Failure should reset the score back to
original one pre-conjunction.
In preparation to handle ambiguities in the elements, it's useful
to extract the logic dealing with constraint system state restoration
into a separate logical entity.
The current IUO design always forms a disjunction
at the overload reference, for both:
- An IUO property `T!`, forming `$T := T? or T`
- An IUO-returning function `() -> T!`, forming `$T := () -> T? or () -> T`
This is simple in concept, however it's suboptimal
for the latter case of IUO-returning functions for
a couple of reasons:
- The arguments cannot be matched independently of
the disjunction
- There's some awkwardness when it comes e.g wrapping
the overload type in an outer layer of optionality
such as `(() -> T!)?`:
- The binding logic has to "adjust" the correct
reference type after forming the disjunction.
- The applicable fn solving logic needs a special
case to handle such functions.
- The CSApply logic needs various hacks such as
ImplicitlyUnwrappedFunctionConversionExpr to
make up for the fact that there's no function
conversion for IUO functions, we can only force
unwrap the function result.
- This lead to various crashes in cases where
we we'd fail to detect the expr and peephole
the force unwrap.
- This also lead to crashes where the solver
would have a different view of the world than
CSApply, as the former would consider an
unwrapped IUO function to be of type `() -> T`
whereas CSApply would correctly see the overload
as being of type `() -> T?`.
To remedy these issues, IUO-returning functions no
longer have their disjunction formed at the overload
reference. Instead, a disjunction is formed when
matching result types for the applicable fn
constraint, using the callee locator to determine
if there's an IUO return to consider. CSApply then
consults the callee locator when finishing up
applies, and inserts the force unwraps as needed,
eliminating ImplicitlyUnwrappedFunctionConversionExpr.
This means that now all IUO disjunctions are of the
form `$T := T? or T`. This will hopefully allow a
further refactoring away from using disjunctions
and instead using type variable binding logic to
apply the correct unwrapping.
Fixes SR-10492.
While solving a conjunction that represents a (multi-statement) closure
constraint system should use such closure as its declaration context,
otherwise member lookup would produce incorrect results.
It helps to simply handling of outer constrants because they have
to be added to the constraint system before scope is created but
constraint graph have to get updated after to make sure that
incremental binding inference already knows about types inferred
from conjunction.
Iterate over all of the elements one-by-one and make sure that
each results in a single solution, otherwise fail the conjunction step.
Once all of the elements are handled either stop or,
if conjunction step has been performed in isolation,
return all of the outer constraints back to the system
and attempt to solve for outer context - that should
produce one or more solutions for conjunction to be
considered successfully solved.
Currently all `ComponentSteps` created by `DependentComponentSplitterStep` share the same `Solutions` vector. Because of this, the `ComponentStep`s might modify solutions created by previous `ComponentStep`s. Use different `Solutions` vectors for each `ComponentStep` to avoid sharing information between the `ComponentStep`s.
The concrete manifestation in the added test case is that the `Bar` overload gets added to `Solutions`, it’s score gets reduced by its `ComponentStep` original score, then the `Foo` overload gets added to `Solutions` and both solutions have their score decreased by the `OriginalScore` of `Foo`’s `ComponentStep`, causing `Bar`’s score to underflow.
Fixes rdar://78780840 [SR-14692]
`PotentialBindings` lost most of its responsibilities,
and are no longer comparable. Their main purpose now
is binding and metadata tracking (introduction/retraction).
New `BindingSet` type is something that represents a set
of bindings at the current step of the solver.
Create a new namespace - `swift::constraints::inference` and associate
`PotentialBinding` with it. This way it would be possible for constraint
graph to operate on `PotentialBinding(s)` in the future.
disjunction choice that does not introduce conversions, check to see
if known argument types satisfy generic operator conformance requirements
early, and skip the overload choice if any requirements fail.
This helps the solver avoid exploring way too much search space when
the right solution involves a generic operator, but the argument types
are known up front, such as `collection + collection + collection`.
successfully finding a solution by favoring operators already bound
elsewhere.
Favoring existing operator bindings often lets the solver find a solution
fast, but it's not necessarily the best solution.
Previously we could skip default literal or
supertype bindings if we had already found a solution
with fixes, which could lead us to miss bindings
that produce better diagnostics.
Tweak the logic such that we continue exploring if
we're in diagnostic mode.
Resolves SR-12399.
Reverts apple/swift#30006. It caused a regression that we'd like to address before re-landing:
```swift
struct X {
var cgf: CGFloat
}
func test(x: X?) {
let _ = (x?.cgf ?? 0) <= 0.5
}
```
This reverts commit 0a6b444b49.
This reverts commit ed255596a6.
This reverts commit 3e01160a2f.
This reverts commit 96297b7e39.
Resolves: rdar://problem/60185506
Rather than maintaining a linked list of overload
choices, which must be linearly searched each time
we need to lookup an overload at a given callee
locator, use a MapVector which can be rolled back
at the end of a scope.
Remove ResolvedOverloadSetListItem in favor of
using SelectedOverload, which avoids the need to
convert between them when moving from
ConstraintSystem to Solution.
An awful pattern we use throughout the compiler is to save and restore global flags just for little things. In this case, it was just to turn on some extra options in AST printing for type variables. The kicker is that the ASTDumper doesn't even respect this flag. Add this as a PrintOption and remove the offending save-and-restores.
This doesn't quite get them all: we appear to have productized this pattern in the REPL.
There were a few places where we wanted fast testing to see whether a
particular type variable is currently of interest. Instead of building
local hash tables in those places, keep type variables in a SetVector
for efficient testing.
Now that we've moved to C++14, we no longer need the llvm::make_unique
implementation from STLExtras.h. This patch is a mechanical replacement
of (hopefully) all the llvm::make_unique instances in the swift repo.
Introduce the notion of "one-way" binding constraints of the form
$T0 one-way bind to $T1
which treats the type variables $T0 and $T1 as independent up until
the point where $T1 simplifies down to a concrete type, at which point
$T0 will be bound to that concrete type. $T0 won't be bound in any
other way, so type information ends up being propagated right-to-left,
only. This allows a constraint system to be broken up in more
components that are solved independently. Specifically, the connected
components algorithm now proceeds as follows:
1. Compute connected components, excluding one-way constraints from
consideration.
2. Compute a directed graph amongst the components using only the
one-way constraints, where an edge A -> B indicates that the type
variables in component A need to be solved before those in component
B.
3. Using the directed graph, compute the set of components that need
to be solved before a given component.
To utilize this, implement a new kind of solver step that handles the
propagation of partial solutions across one-way constraints. This
introduces a new kind of "split" within a connected component, where
we collect each combination of partial solutions for the input
components and (separately) try to solve the constraints in this
component. Any correct solution from any of these attempts will then
be recorded as a (partial) solution for this component.
For example, consider:
let _: Int8 = b ? Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(17)) :
Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(42\
))
where int8Or16 is overloaded with types `(Int8) -> Int8` and
`(Int16) -> Int16`. There are two one-way components (`int8Or16(17)`)
and (`int8Or16(42)`), each of which can produce a value of type `Int8`
or `Int16`. Those two components will be solved independently, and the
partial solutions for each will be fed into the component that
evaluates the ternary operator. There are four ways to attempt that
evaluation:
```
[Int8, Int8]
[Int8, Int16]
[Int16, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
To test this, introduce a new expression builtin `Builtin.one_way(x)` that
introduces a one-way expression constraint binding the result of the
expression 'x'. The builtin is meant to be used for testing purposes,
and the one-way constraint expression itself can be synthesized by the
type checker to introduce one-way constraints later on.
Of these two, there are only two (partial) solutions that can work at
all, because the types in the ternary operator need a common
supertype:
[Int8, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
Therefore, these are the partial solutions that will be considered the
results of the component containing the ternary expression. Note that
only one of them meets the final constraint (convertibility to
`Int8`), so the expression is well-formed.
Part of rdar://problem/50150793.
