Skip to content

SOE during implicit search. #6058

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
sir-wabbit opened this issue Mar 9, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

SOE during implicit search. #6058

sir-wabbit opened this issue Mar 9, 2019 · 2 comments
Assignees
@milessabin
Labels
area:typer itype:bug

Comments

@sir-wabbit
Copy link

sir-wabbit commented Mar 9, 2019 •
edited
Loading 

implicit def i1[I2, I3](i4: I2)(implicit i5: I2 => I3): I3 = ( )

SOE-85929dc39a9360c6c7971b495331a4af3385f111

java.lang.StackOverflowError while compiling test.scala
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.StackOverflowError
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.handleRecursive$.apply(TypeErrors.scala:99)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.TypeComparer.isSubType(TypeComparer.scala:154)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.TypeComparer.isSubType(TypeComparer.scala:162)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.TypeComparer.topLevelSubType(TypeComparer.scala:126)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.Types$Type.$anonfun$$less$colon$less$1(Types.scala:839)
	at scala.runtime.java8.JFunction0$mcZ$sp.apply(JFunction0$mcZ$sp.java:23)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.util.Stats$.track(Stats.scala:37)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.Types$Type.$less$colon$less(Types.scala:839)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.adaptNoArgsOther$1(Typer.scala:2645)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.adaptNoArgs$1(Typer.scala:2718)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.adapt1(Typer.scala:2927)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$adapt$3(Typer.scala:2344)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.reporting.trace$.apply(trace.scala:40)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$adapt$1(Typer.scala:2343)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.util.Stats$.track(Stats.scala:37)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.adapt(Typer.scala:2343)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.ProtoTypes$FunProto.typedArg(ProtoTypes.scala:334)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$ApplyToUntyped.typedArg(Applications.scala:753)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$ApplyToUntyped.typedArg(Applications.scala:751)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$Application.addTyped$1(Applications.scala:519)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$Application.matchArgs(Applications.scala:562)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$Application.init(Applications.scala:340)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$TypedApply.<init>(Applications.scala:654)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications$ApplyToUntyped.<init>(Applications.scala:752)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.simpleApply$1(Applications.scala:814)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.$anonfun$typedApply$9(Applications.scala:843)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.tryEither(Typer.scala:2192)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.$anonfun$typedApply$1(Applications.scala:844)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.util.Stats$.track(Stats.scala:37)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.realApply$1(Applications.scala:783)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.typedApply(Applications.scala:889)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Applications.typedApply$(Applications.scala:781)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedApply(Typer.scala:87)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedUnnamed$1(Typer.scala:2012)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedUnadapted(Typer.scala:2066)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$typed$2(Typer.scala:2100)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.reporting.trace$.apply(trace.scala:40)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2093)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2112)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer.$anonfun$typedAheadExpr$1(Namer.scala:1094)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer.typedAheadImpl(Namer.scala:1084)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer.typedAheadExpr(Namer.scala:1094)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer.valOrDefDefSig(Namer.scala:1262)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer.defDefSig(Namer.scala:1325)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer$Completer.typeSig(Namer.scala:770)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer$Completer.completeInCreationContext(Namer.scala:881)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Namer$Completer.complete(Namer.scala:796)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.SymDenotations$SymDenotation.completeFrom(SymDenotations.scala:236)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.Denotations$Denotation.completeInfo$1(Denotations.scala:180)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.Denotations$Denotation.info(Denotations.scala:182)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.core.SymDenotations$SymDenotation.ensureCompleted(SymDenotations.scala:342)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.retrieveSym(Typer.scala:1964)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedNamed$1(Typer.scala:1989)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedUnadapted(Typer.scala:2065)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$typed$2(Typer.scala:2100)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.reporting.trace$.apply(trace.scala:40)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2093)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2112)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.traverse$1(Typer.scala:2131)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedStats(Typer.scala:2173)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedBlockStats(Typer.scala:701)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$typedBlock$1(Typer.scala:704)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.util.Stats$.track(Stats.scala:37)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedBlock(Typer.scala:703)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedUnnamed$1(Typer.scala:2019)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedUnadapted(Typer.scala:2066)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$typed$2(Typer.scala:2100)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.reporting.trace$.apply(trace.scala:40)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2093)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typed(Typer.scala:2112)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.typedFunctionValue(Typer.scala:977)
	at dotty.tools.dotc.typer.Typer.$anonfun$typedFunction$1(Typer.scala:799)
@odersky
Copy link
Contributor

odersky commented Mar 18, 2019

@milessabin Should this have been caught in divergence checking?

@smarter smarter mentioned this issue Mar 19, 2019
Closed
@milessabin
Copy link
Contributor

@odersky yes it should. I'll take a look.

milessabin added a commit to milessabin/dotty that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2019
@milessabin
Use correct type equality in divergence check
78a50f2 
Fixes scala#6058.
@milessabin milessabin mentioned this issue Mar 25, 2019
Merged
@milessabin milessabin mentioned this issue Apr 4, 2019
Closed
milessabin added a commit to milessabin/dotty that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2019
@milessabin
Fix inductive implicits performance regression
3131803 
The fix for scala#6058 in scala#6163 caused a significant performance regression
in the inductive implicits benchmark because the use of =:= rather than
== in the divergence check was significantly slower. It is the right
test however, so we need a quicker check to rule out negative cases.

We're already computing the covering sets and sizes of the two types
being compared. tp1 =:= tp2 should entail (sz1 == sz2 && cs1 == cs2), so
the contrapositive (sz1 != sz2 || cs1 != cs2) should entail that !(tp1
=:= tp2). However the covering set and size computations were incorrect
(they missed types mentioned in bounds which should have been included,
and included symbols for unsolved type variables which should not).

This commit fixes the latter issue, which allows covering set and size
tests to be used to avoid expensive full type equality tests.
@milessabin milessabin mentioned this issue Apr 17, 2019
Merged
milessabin added a commit to milessabin/dotty that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2019
@milessabin
Fix inductive implicits performance regression
f92773c 
The fix for scala#6058 in scala#6163 caused a significant performance regression
in the inductive implicits benchmark because the use of =:= rather than
== in the divergence check was significantly slower. It is the right
test however, so we need a quicker check to rule out negative cases.

We're already computing the covering sets and sizes of the two types
being compared. tp1 =:= tp2 should entail (sz1 == sz2 && cs1 == cs2), so
the contrapositive (sz1 != sz2 || cs1 != cs2) should entail that !(tp1
=:= tp2). However the covering set and size computations were incorrect
(they missed types mentioned in bounds which should have been included,
and included symbols for unsolved type variables which should not).

This commit fixes the latter issue, which allows covering set and size
tests to be used to avoid expensive full type equality tests.
anatoliykmetyuk pushed a commit to dotty-staging/dotty that referenced this issue May 2, 2019
@milessabin @anatoliykmetyuk
Fix inductive implicits performance regression
6c20cdc 
The fix for scala#6058 in scala#6163 caused a significant performance regression
in the inductive implicits benchmark because the use of =:= rather than
== in the divergence check was significantly slower. It is the right
test however, so we need a quicker check to rule out negative cases.

We're already computing the covering sets and sizes of the two types
being compared. tp1 =:= tp2 should entail (sz1 == sz2 && cs1 == cs2), so
the contrapositive (sz1 != sz2 || cs1 != cs2) should entail that !(tp1
=:= tp2). However the covering set and size computations were incorrect
(they missed types mentioned in bounds which should have been included,
and included symbols for unsolved type variables which should not).

This commit fixes the latter issue, which allows covering set and size
tests to be used to avoid expensive full type equality tests.
@odersky odersky mentioned this issue Dec 16, 2019
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@milessabin milessabin

Labels
area:typer itype:bug
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@smarter @milessabin @sir-wabbit @odersky