RequirementMachine: Better rule deletion heuristic #39772
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
rqm-connected-components
branch
from
5bf6ddd to
9e7ee16
Compare
…al rules Instead of deleting lower numbered rules, compare the LHS, and if they're equal, compare the RHS, then use that to pick the rule to delete.
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
rqm-connected-components
branch
from
9e7ee16 to
cd86924
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
To match the GSB's same-type requirement minimization algorithm, prefer to mark "less canonical" rules as redundant, by defining a linear order on rules that first compares the LHS and then the RHS. This replaces the previous heuristic which simply preferred to delete lower-numbered rules.
Also, the GSB's "connected components" algorithm has special behavior with concrete type requirements that we need to simulate. I already implemented the part where if you start with:
You get:
However we need to handle concrete type requirements when collecting these "connected components" as well, so if you start with
You get:
And not: