From 99366e7c37e8b537b4eac8f3104db7296ceba586 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tim Foley Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 08:31:59 -0700 Subject: Fix an issue with explicit enum tag types (#1495) The basic problem here was that in a declaration like: ```hlsl enum Color : uint { Red, Orange, ... } ``` The `: uint` bit is represented as an `InheritanceDecl`, because that is what we use to represent the syntactic form of inheritance clauses like that. At the point where we parse the `InheritanceDecl` we don't yet know whether it represents a base interface or a "tag type" like `uint` in this case. The root problem that is then created is: an `enum` type is *not* a subtype of its "tag type," and treating it like a subtype can create problems. The main problem that arises is that looking in a type like `Color` will find both the members of color *and* the members of `uint`. In the case of things like `__init` declarations, that creates a problem where the `Color` type has two different `__init`s that take a `uint`: * The one it inherits from `uint` via that `InheritanceDecl` (even though it shouldn't) * The one it gets via an extension just for conforming to `__EnumType` (a non-user-exposed `interface` in the standard library) Because both of those `__init`s are inherited, neither is preferred over the other one and they create an ambiguity if somebody tries to write: ```hlsl uint u = ...; Colorc = Color(u); ``` The solution used in this PR is to add a compiler-internal modifier to the `InheritanceDecl` that introduces a "tag type" to an `enum`, in an early phase of checking (one of the ones that occurs before it is legal to enumerate the bases of a type). Then the lookup process is modified to ignore `InheritanceDecl`s with that modifier when doing lookup in super-types (since the declaration does *not* indicate a subtype/supertype relationship). This appears to get the basic feature working again, although it is possible that there are other parts of the compiler that use `InheritanceDecl`s and mistakently assume that all `InheritanceDecl`s introduce subtype/supertype relationships. We probably need to do a significant audit of the code to start being more clear about the nature of the relationships such declarations introduce. Such steps are left to future changes. Co-authored-by: Yong He --- source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) (limited to 'source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp') diff --git a/source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp b/source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp index 01451470e..c9b922415 100644 --- a/source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp +++ b/source/slang/slang-lookup.cpp @@ -528,6 +528,14 @@ static void _lookUpMembersInSuperTypeDeclImpl( { ensureDecl(semantics, inheritanceDeclRef.getDecl(), DeclCheckState::CanUseBaseOfInheritanceDecl); + // Some things that are syntactically `InheritanceDecl`s don't actually + // represent a subtype/supertype relationship, and thus we shouldn't + // include members from the base type when doing lookup in the + // derived type. + // + if(inheritanceDeclRef.getDecl()->hasModifier()) + continue; + auto baseType = getSup(astBuilder, inheritanceDeclRef); if( auto baseDeclRefType = as(baseType) ) { -- cgit v1.2.3