Merge pull request #63585 from xedin/solver-perf

[CSSolver] Implementation of disjunction choice favoring algorithm

Author: xedin

include/swift/Sema/Constraint.h

@@ -825,11 +825,6 @@ class Constraint final : public llvm::ilist_node<Constraint>,
     });
   }
 
-  /// Returns the number of resolved argument types for an applied disjunction
-  /// constraint. This is always zero for disjunctions that do not represent
-  /// an applied overload.
-  unsigned countResolvedArgumentTypes(ConstraintSystem &cs) const;
-
   /// Determine if this constraint represents explicit conversion,
   /// e.g. coercion constraint "as X" which forms a disjunction.
   bool isExplicitConversion() const;

include/swift/Sema/ConstraintSystem.h

@@ -497,6 +497,14 @@ class TypeVariableType::Implementation {
   /// literal (represented by `ArrayExpr` and `DictionaryExpr` in AST).
   bool isCollectionLiteralType() const;
 
+  /// Determine whether this type variable represents a literal such
+  /// as an integer value, a floating-point value with and without a sign.
+  bool isNumberLiteralType() const;
+
+  /// Determine whether this type variable represents a result type of a
+  /// function call.
+  bool isFunctionResult() const;
+
   /// Retrieve the representative of the equivalence class to which this
   /// type variable belongs.
   ///
@@ -2203,10 +2211,6 @@ class ConstraintSystem {
 
   llvm::SetVector<TypeVariableType *> TypeVariables;
 
-  /// Maps expressions to types for choosing a favored overload
-  /// type in a disjunction constraint.
-  llvm::DenseMap<Expr *, TypeBase *> FavoredTypes;
-
   /// Maps discovered closures to their types inferred
   /// from declared parameters/result and body.
   ///
@@ -2424,75 +2428,6 @@ class ConstraintSystem {
       SynthesizedConformances;
 
 private:
-  /// Describe the candidate expression for partial solving.
-  /// This class used by shrink & solve methods which apply
-  /// variation of directional path consistency algorithm in attempt
-  /// to reduce scopes of the overload sets (disjunctions) in the system.
-  class Candidate {
-    Expr *E;
-    DeclContext *DC;
-    llvm::BumpPtrAllocator &Allocator;
-
-    // Contextual Information.
-    Type CT;
-    ContextualTypePurpose CTP;
-
-  public:
-    Candidate(ConstraintSystem &cs, Expr *expr, Type ct = Type(),
-              ContextualTypePurpose ctp = ContextualTypePurpose::CTP_Unused)
-        : E(expr), DC(cs.DC), Allocator(cs.Allocator), CT(ct), CTP(ctp) {}
-
-    /// Return underlying expression.
-    Expr *getExpr() const { return E; }
-
-    /// Try to solve this candidate sub-expression
-    /// and re-write it's OSR domains afterwards.
-    ///
-    /// \param shrunkExprs The set of expressions which
-    /// domains have been successfully shrunk so far.
-    ///
-    /// \returns true on solver failure, false otherwise.
-    bool solve(llvm::SmallSetVector<OverloadSetRefExpr *, 4> &shrunkExprs);
-
-    /// Apply solutions found by solver as reduced OSR sets for
-    /// for current and all of it's sub-expressions.
-    ///
-    /// \param solutions The solutions found by running solver on the
-    /// this candidate expression.
-    ///
-    /// \param shrunkExprs The set of expressions which
-    /// domains have been successfully shrunk so far.
-    void applySolutions(
-        llvm::SmallVectorImpl<Solution> &solutions,
-        llvm::SmallSetVector<OverloadSetRefExpr *, 4> &shrunkExprs) const;
-
-    /// Check if attempt at solving of the candidate makes sense given
-    /// the current conditions - number of shrunk domains which is related
-    /// to the given candidate over the total number of disjunctions present.
-    static bool
-    isTooComplexGiven(ConstraintSystem *const cs,
-                      llvm::SmallSetVector<OverloadSetRefExpr *, 4> &shrunkExprs) {
-      SmallVector<Constraint *, 8> disjunctions;
-      cs->collectDisjunctions(disjunctions);
-
-      unsigned unsolvedDisjunctions = disjunctions.size();
-      for (auto *disjunction : disjunctions) {
-        auto *locator = disjunction->getLocator();
-        if (!locator)
-          continue;
-
-        if (auto *OSR = getAsExpr<OverloadSetRefExpr>(locator->getAnchor())) {
-          if (shrunkExprs.count(OSR) > 0)
-            --unsolvedDisjunctions;
-        }
-      }
-
-      unsigned threshold =
-          cs->getASTContext().TypeCheckerOpts.SolverShrinkUnsolvedThreshold;
-      return unsolvedDisjunctions >= threshold;
-    }
-  };
-
   /// Describes the current solver state.
   struct SolverState {
     SolverState(ConstraintSystem &cs,
@@ -3016,15 +2951,6 @@ class ConstraintSystem {
     return nullptr;
   }
 
-  TypeBase* getFavoredType(Expr *E) {
-    assert(E != nullptr);
-    return this->FavoredTypes[E];
-  }
-  void setFavoredType(Expr *E, TypeBase *T) {
-    assert(E != nullptr);
-    this->FavoredTypes[E] = T;
-  }
-
   /// Set the type in our type map for the given node, and record the change
   /// in the trail.
   ///
@@ -5280,19 +5206,11 @@ class ConstraintSystem {
   /// \returns true if an error occurred, false otherwise.
   bool solveSimplified(SmallVectorImpl<Solution> &solutions);
 
-  /// Find reduced domains of disjunction constraints for given
-  /// expression, this is achieved to solving individual sub-expressions
-  /// and combining resolving types. Such algorithm is called directional
-  /// path consistency because it goes from children to parents for all
-  /// related sub-expressions taking union of their domains.
-  ///
-  /// \param expr The expression to find reductions for.
-  void shrink(Expr *expr);
-
   /// Pick a disjunction from the InactiveConstraints list.
   ///
-  /// \returns The selected disjunction.
-  Constraint *selectDisjunction();
+  /// \returns The selected disjunction and a set of it's favored choices.
+  std::optional<std::pair<Constraint *, llvm::TinyPtrVector<Constraint *>>>
+  selectDisjunction();
 
   /// Pick a conjunction from the InactiveConstraints list.
   ///
@@ -5481,11 +5399,6 @@ class ConstraintSystem {
   bool applySolutionToBody(TapExpr *tapExpr,
                            SyntacticElementTargetRewriter &rewriter);
 
-  /// Reorder the disjunctive clauses for a given expression to
-  /// increase the likelihood that a favored constraint will be successfully
-  /// resolved before any others.
-  void optimizeConstraints(Expr *e);
-
   void startExpressionTimer(ExpressionTimer::AnchorType anchor);
 
   /// Determine if we've already explored too many paths in an
@@ -6226,7 +6139,8 @@ class DisjunctionChoiceProducer : public BindingProducer<DisjunctionChoice> {
 public:
   using Element = DisjunctionChoice;
 
-  DisjunctionChoiceProducer(ConstraintSystem &cs, Constraint *disjunction)
+  DisjunctionChoiceProducer(ConstraintSystem &cs, Constraint *disjunction,
+                            llvm::TinyPtrVector<Constraint *> &favorites)
       : BindingProducer(cs, disjunction->shouldRememberChoice()
                                 ? disjunction->getLocator()
                                 : nullptr),
@@ -6236,6 +6150,11 @@ class DisjunctionChoiceProducer : public BindingProducer<DisjunctionChoice> {
     assert(disjunction->getKind() == ConstraintKind::Disjunction);
     assert(!disjunction->shouldRememberChoice() || disjunction->getLocator());
 
+    // Mark constraints as favored. This information
+    // is going to be used by partitioner.
+    for (auto *choice : favorites)
+      cs.favorConstraint(choice);
+
     // Order and partition the disjunction choices.
     partitionDisjunction(Ordering, PartitionBeginning);
   }
@@ -6280,8 +6199,9 @@ class DisjunctionChoiceProducer : public BindingProducer<DisjunctionChoice> {
   // Partition the choices in the disjunction into groups that we will
   // iterate over in an order appropriate to attempt to stop before we
   // have to visit all of the options.
-  void partitionDisjunction(SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &Ordering,
-                            SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &PartitionBeginning);
+  void
+  partitionDisjunction(SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &Ordering,
+                       SmallVectorImpl<unsigned> &PartitionBeginning);
 
   /// Partition the choices in the range \c first to \c last into groups and
   /// order the groups in the best order to attempt based on the argument

lib/Sema/CMakeLists.txt

@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ add_swift_host_library(swiftSema STATIC
   CSStep.cpp
   CSTrail.cpp
   CSFix.cpp
+  CSOptimizer.cpp
   CSDiagnostics.cpp
   CodeSynthesis.cpp
   CodeSynthesisDistributedActor.cpp

lib/Sema/CSBindings.cpp

@@ -31,6 +31,12 @@ using namespace swift;
 using namespace constraints;
 using namespace inference;
 
+/// Check whether there exists a type that could be implicitly converted
+/// to a given type i.e. is the given type is Double or Optional<..> this
+/// function is going to return true because CGFloat could be converted
+/// to a Double and non-optional value could be injected into an optional.
+static bool hasConversions(Type);
+
 static std::optional<Type> checkTypeOfBinding(TypeVariableType *typeVar,
                                               Type type);
 
@@ -1209,7 +1215,31 @@ bool BindingSet::isViable(PotentialBinding &binding, bool isTransitive) {
     if (!existingNTD || NTD != existingNTD)
       continue;
 
-    // FIXME: What is going on here needs to be thoroughly re-evaluated.
+    // What is going on in this method needs to be thoroughly re-evaluated!
+    //
+    // This logic aims to skip dropping bindings if
+    // collection type has conversions i.e. in situations like:
+    //
+    // [$T1] conv $T2
+    // $T2 conv [(Int, String)]
+    // $T2.Element equal $T5.Element
+    //
+    // `$T1` could be bound to `(i: Int, v: String)` after
+    // `$T2` is bound to `[(Int, String)]` which is is a problem
+    // because it means that `$T2` was attempted to early
+    // before the solver had a chance to discover all viable
+    // bindings.
+    //
+    // Let's say existing binding is `[(Int, String)]` and
+    // relation is "exact", in this case there is no point
+    // tracking `[$T1]` because upcasts are only allowed for
+    // subtype and other conversions.
+    if (existing->Kind != AllowedBindingKind::Exact) {
+      if (existingType->isKnownStdlibCollectionType() &&
+          hasConversions(existingType)) {
+        continue;
+      }
+    }
 
     // If new type has a type variable it shouldn't
     // be considered  viable.
@@ -2417,17 +2447,35 @@ bool TypeVarBindingProducer::computeNext() {
     if (binding.Kind == BindingKind::Subtypes || CS.shouldAttemptFixes()) {
       // If we were unsuccessful solving for T?, try solving for T.
       if (auto objTy = type->getOptionalObjectType()) {
-        // If T is a type variable, only attempt this if both the
-        // type variable we are trying bindings for, and the type
-        // variable we will attempt to bind, both have the same
-        // polarity with respect to being able to bind lvalues.
-        if (auto otherTypeVar = objTy->getAs<TypeVariableType>()) {
-          if (TypeVar->getImpl().canBindToLValue() ==
-              otherTypeVar->getImpl().canBindToLValue()) {
-            addNewBinding(binding.withSameSource(objTy, binding.Kind));
+        // TODO: This could be generalized in the future to cover all patterns
+        // that have an intermediate type variable in subtype/conversion chain.
+        //
+        // Let's not perform $T? -> $T for closure result types to avoid having
+        // to re-discover solutions that differ only in location of optional
+        // injection.
+        //
+        // The pattern with such type variables is:
+        //
+        // $T_body <conv/subtype> $T_result <conv/subtype> $T_contextual_result
+        //
+        // When $T_contextual_result is Optional<$U>, the optional injection
+        // can either happen from $T_body or from $T_result (if `return`
+        // expression is non-optional), if we allow  both the solver would
+        // find two solutions that differ only in location of optional
+        // injection.
+        if (!TypeVar->getImpl().isClosureResultType()) {
+          // If T is a type variable, only attempt this if both the
+          // type variable we are trying bindings for, and the type
+          // variable we will attempt to bind, both have the same
+          // polarity with respect to being able to bind lvalues.
+          if (auto otherTypeVar = objTy->getAs<TypeVariableType>()) {
+            if (TypeVar->getImpl().canBindToLValue() ==
+                otherTypeVar->getImpl().canBindToLValue()) {
+              addNewBinding(binding.withType(objTy));
+            }
+          } else {
+            addNewBinding(binding.withType(objTy));
           }
-        } else {
-          addNewBinding(binding.withSameSource(objTy, binding.Kind));
         }
       }
     }