Skip to content

Backport "Make overload pruning based on result types less aggressive" to 3.3 LTS #265

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 23, 2025

Conversation

tgodzik
Copy link

@tgodzik tgodzik commented Apr 22, 2025

Backports scala#21744 to the 3.3.7.

PR submitted by the release tooling.

smarter and others added 4 commits April 22, 2025 19:34
`adaptByResult` was introduced in 2015 in
54835b6 as a last step in overloading
resolution:

> Take expected result type into account more often for overloading resolution
>
> Previously, the expected result type of a FunProto type was ignored and taken into
> account only in case of ambiguities. arrayclone-new.scala shows that this is not enough.
> In a case like
>
>     val x: Array[Byte] = Array(1, 2)
>
> we typed 1, 2 to be Int, so overloading resulution would give the Array.apply of
> type (Int, Int*)Array[Int]. But that's a dead end, since Array[Int] is not a subtype
> of Array[Byte].
>
> This commit proposes the following modified rule for overloading resulution:
>
>   A method alternative is applicable if ... (as before), and if its result type
>   is copmpatible with the expected type of the method application.
>
> The commit does not pre-select alternatives based on comparing with the expected
> result type. I tried that but it slowed down typechecking by a factor of at least 4.
> Instead, we proceed as usual, ignoring the result type except in case of
> ambiguities, but check whether the result of overloading resolution has a
> compatible result type. If that's not the case, we filter all alternatives
> for result type compatibility and try again.

In i21410.scala this means we end up checking:

    F[?U] <:< Int
    (where ?U is unconstrained, because the check is done without looking at the
    argument types)

The problem is that the subtype check returning false does not mean that there
is no instantiation of `?U` that would make this check return true, just that
type inference was not able to come up with one. This could happen for any
number of reason but commonly will happen with match types since inference
cannot do much with them.

We cannot avoid this by taking the argument types into account, because this
logic was added precisely to handle cases where the argument types mislead you
because adaptation isn't taken into account. Instead, we can approximate type
variables in the result type to trade false negatives for false positives which
should be less problematic here.

Fixes scala#21410.

[Cherry-picked 528d0f0]
Overloading may create a temporary symbol via `Applications#resolveMapped`, but
before this commit, this symbol did not carry the annotations from the original
symbol. This meant in particular that `isInlineable` would always return false
for them. This matters because during the course of overloading resolution we
might call `ProtoTypes.Compatibility#constrainResult` which special-cases
transparent inline methods.

Fixes a regression in Monocle introduced in the previous commit.

wip

[Cherry-picked f7259cf]
The changes two commits ago were not enough to handle i21410b.scala because we
end up checking:

    Tuple.Map[WildcardType(...), List] <: (List[Int], List[String])

which fails because a match type with a wildcard argument apparently only gets
reduced when the match type case is not parameterized.

To handle this more generally we use AvoidWildcardsMap to remove wildcards from
the result type, but since we want to prevent false negatives we start with
`variance = -1` to get a lower-bound instead of an upper-bound.

[Cherry-picked 32ac2e6]
@som-snytt
Copy link

I don't know the context, but I remember "helping" with similar
scala@eea481f
scala@fddab10

@tgodzik
Copy link
Author

tgodzik commented Apr 23, 2025

The second one is already in the LTS branch, the first one is currently being back ported 😄

Base automatically changed from backport-lts-3.3-22502 to lts-3.3 April 23, 2025 08:05
@tgodzik
Copy link
Author

tgodzik commented Apr 23, 2025

No regressions detected in the community build up to backport-lts-3.3-21744.

Reference

@tgodzik tgodzik merged commit 97c072a into lts-3.3 Apr 23, 2025
22 checks passed
@tgodzik tgodzik deleted the backport-lts-3.3-21744 branch April 23, 2025 08:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants