Canonicalize conformance access paths for sources pre-requirement-signature.

DougGregor · DougGregor · commit 1f8b0f9b8540 · 2017-03-08T16:14:55.000-08:00
When a requirement source involving a ProtocolRequirement element is
built prior to the requirement signature of the protocol it
references, we can end up with a requirement source whose steps don't
reflect was is actually available via the requirement signatures. When
building a conformance access path from such requirement sources,
canonicalize on-the-fly using the requirement signatures (which have
been/can be computed by this point) to produce a correct access path.
diff --git a/include/swift/AST/GenericSignatureBuilder.h b/include/swift/AST/GenericSignatureBuilder.h
@@ -504,6 +504,7 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
                                   WrittenRequirementLoc> {
 
   friend class FloatingRequirementSource;
+  friend class GenericSignature;
 
 public:
   enum Kind : uint8_t {
@@ -584,6 +585,9 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
   /// Whether there is a trailing written requirement location.
   const bool hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc;
 
+  /// Whether a protocol requirement came from the requirement signature.
+  const bool usesRequirementSignature;
+
   /// The actual storage, described by \c storageKind.
   union {
     /// The root archetype.
@@ -673,7 +677,7 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
                     WrittenRequirementLoc writtenReqLoc)
     : kind(kind), storageKind(StorageKind::RootArchetype),
       hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc(!writtenReqLoc.isNull()),
-      parent(nullptr) {
+      usesRequirementSignature(false), parent(nullptr) {
     assert(isAcceptableStorageKind(kind, storageKind) &&
            "RequirementSource kind/storageKind mismatch");
 
@@ -689,7 +693,7 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
                     WrittenRequirementLoc writtenReqLoc)
     : kind(kind), storageKind(StorageKind::StoredType),
       hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc(!writtenReqLoc.isNull()),
-
+      usesRequirementSignature(protocol->isRequirementSignatureComputed()),
       parent(parent) {
     assert((static_cast<bool>(parent) != isRootKind(kind)) &&
            "Root RequirementSource should not have parent (or vice versa)");
@@ -707,7 +711,7 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
                     ProtocolConformance *conformance)
     : kind(kind), storageKind(StorageKind::ProtocolConformance),
       hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc(false),
-      parent(parent) {
+      usesRequirementSignature(false), parent(parent) {
     assert((static_cast<bool>(parent) != isRootKind(kind)) &&
            "Root RequirementSource should not have parent (or vice versa)");
     assert(isAcceptableStorageKind(kind, storageKind) &&
@@ -720,7 +724,7 @@ class GenericSignatureBuilder::RequirementSource final
                     AssociatedTypeDecl *assocType)
     : kind(kind), storageKind(StorageKind::AssociatedTypeDecl),
       hasTrailingWrittenRequirementLoc(false),
-      parent(parent) {
+      usesRequirementSignature(false), parent(parent) {
     assert((static_cast<bool>(parent) != isRootKind(kind)) &&
            "Root RequirementSource should not have parent (or vice versa)");
     assert(isAcceptableStorageKind(kind, storageKind) &&
diff --git a/lib/AST/GenericSignature.cpp b/lib/AST/GenericSignature.cpp
@@ -728,6 +728,16 @@ GenericEnvironment *CanGenericSignature::getGenericEnvironment(
            module);
 }
 
+/// Remove all of the associated type declarations from the given type
+/// parameter, producing \c DependentMemberTypes with names alone.
+static Type eraseAssociatedTypes(Type type) {
+  if (auto depMemTy = type->getAs<DependentMemberType>())
+    return DependentMemberType::get(eraseAssociatedTypes(depMemTy->getBase()),
+                                    depMemTy->getName());
+
+  return type;
+}
+
 ConformanceAccessPath GenericSignature::getConformanceAccessPath(
                                                        Type type,
                                                        ProtocolDecl *protocol,
@@ -770,42 +780,82 @@ ConformanceAccessPath GenericSignature::getConformanceAccessPath(
 #endif
 
   // Local function to construct the conformance access path from the
-  // requirement
-  std::function<void(const RequirementSource *, ProtocolDecl *)> buildPath;
-  buildPath = [&](const RequirementSource *source,
+  // requirement.
+  std::function<void(GenericSignature *, const RequirementSource *,
+                     ProtocolDecl *)> buildPath;
+  buildPath = [&](GenericSignature *sig, const RequirementSource *source,
                   ProtocolDecl *conformingProto) {
     // Each protocol requirement is a step along the path.
     if (source->kind == RequirementSource::ProtocolRequirement) {
       // Follow the rest of the path to derive the conformance into which
       // this particular protocol requirement step would look.
       auto inProtocol = source->getProtocolDecl();
-      buildPath(source->parent, inProtocol);
+      buildPath(sig, source->parent, inProtocol);
+      assert(path.path.back().second == inProtocol &&
+             "path produces incorrect conformance");
+
+      // If this step was computed via the requirement signature, add it
+      // directly.
+      if (source->usesRequirementSignature) {
+        // Add this step along the path, which involes looking for the
+        // conformance we want (\c conformingProto) within the protocol
+        // described by this source.
+
+        // Canonicalize the subject type within the protocol's requirement
+        // signature.
+        // FIXME: We might be able to guarantee this when building from a
+        // requirement signature.
+        Type subjectType = source->getStoredType();
+        subjectType = inProtocol->getRequirementSignature()
+          ->getCanonicalTypeInContext(subjectType,
+                                      *inProtocol->getParentModule());
+
+        assert(hasConformanceInSignature(inProtocol->getRequirementSignature(),
+                                         subjectType, conformingProto) &&
+               "missing explicit conformance in requirement signature");
+
+        // Record this step.
+        path.path.push_back({subjectType, conformingProto});
+        return;
+      }
 
-      // Add this step along the path, which involes looking for the
-      // conformance we want (\c conformingProto) within the protocol
-      // described by this source.
+      // Canonicalize this step with respect to the requirement signature.
+      if (!inProtocol->isRequirementSignatureComputed()) {
+        inProtocol->computeRequirementSignature();
+        assert(inProtocol->isRequirementSignatureComputed() &&
+               "missing signature");
+      }
+
+      // Get a generic signature builder for the requirement signature. This has
+      // the requirement we need.
+      auto reqSig = inProtocol->getRequirementSignature();
+      auto &reqSigBuilder = *reqSig->getGenericSignatureBuilder(
+                                               *inProtocol->getModuleContext());
 
-      // Canonicalize the subject type within the protocol's requirement
-      // signature.
-      Type subjectType = source->getStoredType();
-      subjectType = inProtocol->getRequirementSignature()
-        ->getCanonicalTypeInContext(subjectType,
-                                    *inProtocol->getParentModule());
+      // Retrieve the stored type, but erase all of the specific associated
+      // type declarations; we don't want any details of the enclosing context
+      // to sneak in here.
+      Type storedType = eraseAssociatedTypes(source->getStoredType());
 
-      assert(hasConformanceInSignature(inProtocol->getRequirementSignature(),
-                                       subjectType, conformingProto) &&
-             "missing explicit conformance in requirement signature");
+      // Dig out the potential archetype for this stored type.
+      auto pa = reqSigBuilder.resolveArchetype(storedType);
+      auto rep = pa->getRepresentative();
 
-      // Record this step.
-      path.path.push_back({subjectType, conformingProto});
+      // Find the conformance of this potential archetype to the protocol in
+      // question.
+      auto knownConforms = rep->getConformsTo().find(conformingProto);
+      assert(knownConforms != rep->getConformsTo().end());
+
+      // Build the path according to the requirement signature.
+      buildPath(reqSig, knownConforms->second, conformingProto);
 
       // We're done.
       return;
     }
 
     // If we still have a parent, keep going.
     if (source->parent) {
-      buildPath(source->parent, conformingProto);
+      buildPath(sig, source->parent, conformingProto);
       return;
     }
 
@@ -815,17 +865,24 @@ ConformanceAccessPath GenericSignature::getConformanceAccessPath(
 
     // Retrieve the subject type, which is the archetype anchor for the root
     // of this requirement.
-    auto anchor =
-      source->getRootPotentialArchetype()->getArchetypeAnchor(builder);
-    Type subjectType = anchor->getDependentType(getGenericParams(), false);
+    auto subjectPA = source->getRootPotentialArchetype();
+    subjectPA = subjectPA->getArchetypeAnchor(*subjectPA->getBuilder());
+    Type subjectType = subjectPA->getDependentType(sig->getGenericParams(),
+                                                   false);
+
+    // Skip trivial path elements. These occur when querying a requirement
+    // signature.
+    if (!path.path.empty() && conformingProto == path.path.back().second &&
+        subjectType->isEqual(conformingProto->getSelfInterfaceType()))
+      return;
 
-    assert(hasConformanceInSignature(this, subjectType, conformingProto) &&
+    assert(hasConformanceInSignature(sig, subjectType, conformingProto) &&
            "missing explicit conformance in signature");
 
     // Add the root of the path, which starts at this explicit requirement.
     path.path.push_back({subjectType, conformingProto});
   };
-  buildPath(conforms->second, protocol);
+  buildPath(this, conforms->second, protocol);
 
   // Return the path; we're done!
   return path;
diff --git a/test/Generics/conformance_access_path.swift b/test/Generics/conformance_access_path.swift
@@ -49,9 +49,24 @@ func testPaths2<U: P2 & P4>(_ t: U) where U.AssocP3 == U.AssocP2.AssocP1 {
 }
 
 func testPaths3<V: P5>(_ v: V) {
-	// CHECK: Conformance access path for V.AssocP3: P0 is V: P5 -> τ_0_0.AssocP3: Q0 -> τ_0_0: P0
+	// CHECK: Conformance access path for V.AssocP3: P0 is V: P5 -> Self.AssocP3: Q0 -> τ_0_0: P0
 	acceptP0(v.getAssocP3())
 
-	// CHECK: Conformance access path for V.AssocP3: Q0 is V: P5 -> τ_0_0.AssocP3: Q0
+	// CHECK: Conformance access path for V.AssocP3: Q0 is V: P5 -> Self.AssocP3: Q0
 	acceptQ0(v.getAssocP3())
 }
+
+protocol P6Unordered: P5Unordered {
+	associatedtype A: P0
+}
+
+protocol P5Unordered {
+	associatedtype A: P0
+
+	func getA() -> A
+}
+
+func testUnorderedP5_P6<W: P6Unordered>(_ w: W) {
+	// CHECK: Conformance access path for W.A: P0 is W: P6Unordered -> Self: P5Unordered -> τ_0_0.A: P0
+	acceptP0(w.getA())
+}
