We used to skip a pass if any of the three flags were set, but we have
to check them separately to ensure that all flags are independently
set correctly.
We have three simplification passes, give each one its own predicate:
- Left hand side simplification
- Right hand side simplification
- Substitution simplification
This is for debugging output and will also allow me to tighten up
some invariants.
When minimizing a generic signature, we only care about loops
where the basepoint is a generic parameter symbol.
When minimizing protocol requirement signatures in a connected
component, we only care about loops where the basepoint is a
protocol symbol or associated type symbol whose protocol is
part of the connected component.
All other loops can be discarded since they do not encode
redundancies that are relevant to us.
Previously we did this when adding new concrete type rules,
but we don't have a complete rewrite system at that point yet,
so there was no guarantee concrete substitution terms would
be canonical.
Now, perform simplification in a post-pass after completion,
at the same time as simplifying rule right hand sides.
Rewrite loops are recorded relating the original rule with the
simplified substitutions.
With this change the RequirementMachine's minimization behavior with
protocol refinement rules matches the GenericSignatureBuilder.
See https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/37466 for a full explanation
of what's going on here.
A superclass requirement implies a layout requirement. We don't
want the layout requirement to be present in the minimal
signature, so instead of adding a pair of requirements:
T.[superclass: C<X, Y>] => T
T.[layout: _NativeClass] => T
Add this pair of requirements:
T.[superclass: C<X, Y>] => T
[superclass: C<X, Y>].[layout: _NativeClass] => [superclass: C<X, Y>] [permanent]
Completion then derives the rule as a consequence:
T.[layout: _NativeClass] => T
Since this rule is a consequence of the other two rules, homotopy
reduction will mark it redundant.
Suppose we have these rules:
(1) [P].[P] => [P]
(2) [P].[P:X] => [P:X]
(3) [P].[P:Y] => [P:Y]
(4) [P:X].[concrete: G<τ_0_0> with <[P:Y]>]
Rule (2) and (4) overlap on the following term, which has had the concrete
type adjustment applied:
[P].[P:X].[concrete: G<τ_0_0> with <[P].[P:Y]>]
The critical pair is obtained by applying rule (2) to both sides of the
branching is
[P:X].[concrete: G<τ_0_0> with <[P].[P:Y]>] => [P:X]
Note that this is a distinct rule from (4), and again this new rule overlaps
with (2), producing another rule
[P:X].[concrete: G<τ_0_0> with <[P].[P].[P:Y]>] => [P:X]
This process doesn't terminate. The root cause of this problem is the
existence of rule (1), which appears when there are multiple non-trivial
conformance paths witnessing the conformance Self : P. This occurs when a
same-type requirement is defined between Self and some other type conforming
to P.
To make this work, we need to simplify concrete substitutions when adding a
new rule in completion. Now that rewrite paths can represent this form of
simplification, this is easy to add.
We didn't look at the length of terms appearing in concrete substitutions,
so runaway recursion there was only caught by the completion step limit
which takes much longer.
Also while plumbing this through, don't record homotopy generators
unless we're minimizing a protocol signature, since they're not
used for anything else yet.
For implementation reasons we want the requirement signature of a
protocol to directly include all protocol refinement relationships,
even if they can be derived via same-type requirements between Self
and some nested type.
Therefore, a protocol refinement rule [P].[Q] => [P] can only be
replaced with a generating conformance equation that consists
entirely of other conformance rules.
This exactly simulates the existing behavior of the GSB's redundant
requirements algorithm.
- Skip permanent rules (there's no point, we'll add them back next time)
- Skip conformance rules (these will be handled separately)
- Delete 3-cells that are entirely "in-context" (but don't quote me on
this one, I'm not quite yet convinced it's correct, but it feels right)
