A conditional conformance to a protocol does not usually imply
a conformance to the protocol's inherited protocols, because
we have no way to guess what the conditional requirements
should be.
A carveout was added for 'Sendable', so that protocols could
inherit from 'Sendable' retroactively. However, the 'Sendable'
conformance would become conditional, which causes us to
reject a _second_ conditional conformance to such a protocol:
struct G<T> {}
protocol P: Sendable {}
protocol Q: Sendable {}
extension G: P where T: P {}
extension G: Q where T: Q {}
To make this work, tweak the code so that an implied conformance
has the same generic signature as the conforming type, that is,
we force it to be unconditional.
Fixes rdar://122754849
Fixes https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/issues/71544
Although I don't plan to bring over new assertions wholesale
into the current qualification branch, it's entirely possible
that various minor changes in main will use the new assertions;
having this basic support in the release branch will simplify that.
(This is why I'm adding the includes as a separate pass from
rewriting the individual assertions)
Force resolution of value witnesses and check the conformance for validity
before proceeding to witness table emission in SILGen to avoid crashing because
of unexpected errors in the AST.
Resolves rdar://123027739
With NoncopyableGenerics, we get a cycle involving
`SuperclassTypeRequest` with this program:
public struct RawMarkupHeader {}
final class RawMarkup: ManagedBuffer<RawMarkupHeader, RawMarkup> { }
Because we generally don't support the following kind of relationship:
class Base<T: P>: P {}
class Derived: Base<Derived> {}
This commit works around the root-cause, which is that Derived's
synthesized conformance to Copyable gets superceded by the inherited one
from Base. Instead of recording conformances in the ConformanceLookup
table at all, create builtin conformances on the fly, since classes
cannot be conditionally Copyable or Escapable.
While certain kinds of enums synthesize Equatable, Hashable, and
RawRepresentable conformances, we can't yet permit noncopyable types to
synthesize those until we upgrade those protocols themselves to not
require `Copyable` conformers. For example, Equatable needs to be
changed in the stdlib to be `protocol Equatable: ~Copyable`, etc.
I'm deferring upgrade work until a bit later.
The solution is to add the unconditional conformances when building the
conformance lookup table for each nominal, instead of waiting until
conformance lookup infers it.
At the moment, because the stdlib isn't being built with Copyable
conformances injected into it, we still end up needing to infer Copyable
conformances for nominals like `Int` from the stdlib when trying to test
the feature, since it loads those nominals, but they lack conformance.
That should go away once we do enable NoncopyableGenerics for the stdlib
by default, and we'll be left with only inferring the conditional
conformance in TypeCheckInvertible.
First, "can have an absence of Copyable" is a rather confusing notion,
so the query is flipped to "can be Copyable". Next, it's more robust to
ask if a conformance exists for the TypeDecl to answer that question,
rather than trying to replicate what happens within that conformance
lookup.
Also renames `TypeDecl::isEscapable` to match.
When an actual instance of a distributed actor is on the local node, it is
has the capabilities of `Actor`. This isn't expressible directly in the type
system, because not all `DistributedActor`s are `Actor`s, nor is the
opposite true.
Instead, provide an API `DistributedActor.asLocalActor` that can only
be executed when the distributed actor is known to be local (because
this API is not itself `distributed`), and produces an existential
`any Actor` referencing that actor. The resulting existential value
carries with it a special witness table that adapts any type
conforming to the DistributedActor protocol into a type that conforms
to the Actor protocol. It is "as if" one had written something like this:
extension DistributedActor: Actor { }
which, of course, is not permitted in the language. Nonetheless, we
lovingly craft such a witness table:
* The "type" being extended is represented as an extension context,
rather than as a type context. This hasn't been done before, all Swift
runtimes support it uniformly.
* A special witness is provided in the Distributed library to implement
the `Actor.unownedExecutor` operation. This witness back-deploys to the
Swift version were distributed actors were introduced (5.7). On Swift
5.9 runtimes (and newer), it will use
`DistributedActor.unownedExecutor` to support custom executors.
* The conformance of `Self: DistributedActor` is represented as a
conditional requirement, which gets satisfied by the witness table
that makes the type a `DistributedActor`. This makes the special
witness work.
* The witness table is *not* visible via any of the normal runtime
lookup tables, because doing so would allow any
`DistributedActor`-conforming type to conform to `Actor`, which would
break the safety model.
* The witness table is emitted on demand in any client that needs it.
In back-deployment configurations, there may be several witness tables
for the same concrete distributed actor conforming to `Actor`.
However, this duplication can only be observed under fairly extreme
circumstances (where one is opening the returned existential and
instantiating generic types with the distributed actor type as an
`Actor`, then performing dynamic type equivalence checks), and will
not be present with a new Swift runtime.
All of these tricks together mean that we need no runtime changes, and
`asLocalActor` back-deploys as far as distributed actors, allowing it's
use in `#isolation` and the async for...in loop.
When the BitwiseCopyable experimental feature is enabled, infer types to
conform to `_BitwiseCopyable`. The `_BitwiseCopyable` inference broadly
follows the approach taken to infer `Sendable`.
(1) Special types are conformed:
- function types if trivial
- metatypes
- builtin types if trivial
(2) TheTupleType is conditionally conformed.
(3) Nominal types are conformed if:
- non-public or public+fixed-layout
- enum or struct (non-class)
- every field conforms to _BitwiseCopyable
Additionally, check that nominal types which are explicitly conformed to
`_BitwiseCopyable` satisfy the latter two conditions of (3).
For a public, non-fixed-layout type to conform to `_BitwiseCopyable`,
the user must conform the type explicitly.
Finally, verify that conformances correspond to TypeLowering's notion of
triviality to the appropriate extent:
- if a type isn't trivial, it doesn't conform to `_BitwiseCopyable`
unless it's an archetype
- if a type is trivial, it conforms to `_BitwiseCopyable` unless some
field in its layout doesn't conform to `_BitwiseCopyable`, which is
only permitted under certain circumstances (the type has generic
parameters, the type is public non-fixed-layout, the type is a
reference but has ReferenceStorage::Unmanaged, the type is a
ModuleType, etc.)
This implementation has the function execute a request to scan the
inheritance clause of non-protocol nominals for a `~Copyable`. For
protocols, we look in the requirement signature.
This isn't our final state, as the GenericEnvironment needs to be
queried in general to determine of a Type is noncopyable. So for now
checking for a `~Copyable` only makes sense for Decls.
I've renamed the method to `TypeDecl::isNoncopyable`, because the query
doesn't make sense for many other kinds of `ValueDecl`'s beyond the
`TypeDecl`'s. In fact, it looks like no one was relying on that anyway.
Thus, we now have a distinction where in Sema, you ask whether
a `Type` or `TypeDecl` is "Noncopyable". But within SIL, we still
preserve the notion of "move-only" since there is additionally the
move-only type wrapper for types that otherwise support copying.
The substituted witness type may depend on a tentative type witness
indirectly. In this case, we would incorrectly cache the result.
The outcome was that associated type inference would fail because
the first attempted witness would "lock in" a cached substituted
witness in some other specialized conformance.
Fix two inter-related issues with extension macros that provide
conformances to a protocol, the combined effect of which is that one
cannot meaningfully provide extension macros that implement
conformances to a protocol like Equatable or Hashable that also
supports auto-synthesis.
The first issue involves name lookup of operators provided by macro
expansions. The logic for performing qualified lookup in addition to
unqualified lookup (for operators) did not account for extension
macros in the same manner as it did for member macros, so we would not
find a macro-produced operator (such as operator==) in witness
matching.
The second issue is more fundamental, which is that the conformance
lookup table would create `NormalProtocolConformance` instances for
pre-macro-expansion conformance entries, even though these should
always have been superseded by explicit conformances within the macro
expansion buffers. The end result is that we could end up with two
`NormalProtocolConformance` records for the same conformance. Some
code was taught to ignore the pre-expansion placeholder conformances,
other code was not. Instead, we now refuse to create a
`NormalProtocolConformance` for the pre-expansion entries, and remove
all of the special-case checks for this, so we always using the
superseding explicit conformances produced by the macro expansions (or
error if the macros don't produce them).
Fixes rdar://113994346 / https://github.com/apple/swift/issues/66348
stated in the original source.
If an extension macro can introduce protocol conformances, macro expansion
will check which of those protocols already have a stated conformance in the
original source. The protocols that don't will be passed as arguments to
extension macro expansion, indicating to the macro that it should only add
conformances to those protocols.
