stdlib: Add SIMDMaskScalar.SIMDMaskScalar == SIMDMaskScalar requirement to SIMDScalar #59647
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
stdlib-simd-requirement-machine-hack
branch
2 times, most recently
from
704850e to
158d8e1
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
…nt to SIMDScalar
In theory this is a source break if someone had a weird custom
conforming type, but I suspect in practice conformances to
this protocol are never defined.
The reason we want this requirement is that often you will see
code like the following:
protocol Point {
associatedtype Scalar: SIMDScalar
associatedtype Vector: SIMD where Vector.Scalar == Scalar
}
extension Point where Vector == SIMD2<Scalar> { ... }
When `Vector` is equated with `SIMD2<Scalar>`, we get an infinite
sequence of implied same-type requirements:
Vector.MaskStorage == SIMD2<Scalar.MaskScalar>
Vector.MaskStorage.MaskStorage == SIMD2<Scalar.MaskScalar.MaskScalar>
...
The protocol fails to typecheck with an error because the requirement
machine cannot build a rewrite system.
If SIMDScalar requires that MaskScalar.MaskScalar == MaskScalar, then
we instead get
Vector.MaskStorage == SIMD2<Scalar.MaskScalar>
Vector.MaskStorage.MaskStorage == SIMD2<Scalar.MaskScalar>
Vector.MaskStorage.MaskStorage == Vector.MaskStorage
...
Which ties off the recursion.
In theory, a more advanced implementation could represent this kind of
infinite recursion in 'closed form', but we don't have that yet, and I
believe adding this same-type requirement makes sense anyway.
Fixes rdar://problem/95075552.
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
stdlib-simd-requirement-machine-hack
branch
from
158d8e1 to
2734f3c
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
|
@swift-ci Please test source compatibility |
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test macOS |
1 similar comment
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test macOS |
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.
In theory this is a source break if someone had a weird custom
conforming type, but I suspect in practice conformances to
this protocol are never defined.
The reason we want this requirement is that often you will see
code like the following:
When
Vectoris equated withSIMD2<Scalar>, we get an infinitesequence of implied same-type requirements:
The protocol fails to typecheck with an error because the requirement
machine cannot build a rewrite system.
If SIMDScalar requires that MaskScalar.MaskScalar == MaskScalar, then
we instead get
Which ties off the recursion.
In theory, a more advanced implementation could represent this kind of
infinite recursion in 'closed form', but we don't have that yet, and I
believe adding this same-type requirement makes sense anyway.
Fixes rdar://problem/95075552.