+ -- It is vital for newtype reconstruction that the unification step
+ -- is done right here, _before_ the subterms are RTTI reconstructed
+ let myType = mkFunTys subTtypes tv
+ (signatureType,_) <- instScheme(dataConRepType dc)
+ addConstraint myType signatureType
+ return $ [ appArr (\e->(t,e)) (ptrs clos) i
+ | (i,t) <- drop extra_args $
+ zip [0..] (filter isPointed subTtypes)]
+ _ -> return []
+
+ -- This helper computes the difference between a base type t and the
+ -- improved rtti_t computed by RTTI
+ -- The main difference between RTTI types and their normal counterparts
+ -- is that the former are _not_ polymorphic, thus polymorphism must
+ -- be stripped. Syntactically, forall's must be stripped.
+ -- We also remove predicates.
+unifyRTTI :: Type -> Type -> TvSubst
+unifyRTTI ty rtti_ty =
+ case mb_subst of
+ Just subst -> subst
+ Nothing -> pprPanic "Failed to compute a RTTI substitution"
+ (ppr (ty, rtti_ty))
+ -- In addition, we strip newtypes too, since the reconstructed type might
+ -- not have recovered them all
+ -- TODO stripping newtypes shouldn't be necessary, test
+ where mb_subst = tcUnifyTys (const BindMe)
+ [rttiView ty]
+ [rttiView rtti_ty]
+
+-- Dealing with newtypes
+{-
+ A parallel fold over two Type values,
+ compensating for missing newtypes on both sides.
+ This is necessary because newtypes are not present
+ in runtime, but since sometimes there is evidence
+ available we do our best to reconstruct them.
+ Evidence can come from DataCon signatures or
+ from compile-time type inference.
+ I am using the words congruence and rewriting
+ because what we are doing here is an approximation
+ of unification modulo a set of equations, which would
+ come from newtype definitions. These should be the
+ equality coercions seen in System Fc. Rewriting
+ is performed, taking those equations as rules,
+ before launching unification.
+
+ It doesn't make sense to rewrite everywhere,
+ or we would end up with all newtypes. So we rewrite
+ only in presence of evidence.
+ The lhs comes from the heap structure of ptrs,nptrs.
+ The rhs comes from a DataCon type signature.
+ Rewriting in the rhs is restricted to the result type.
+
+ Note that it is very tricky to make this 'rewriting'
+ work with the unification implemented by TcM, where
+ substitutions are 'inlined'. The order in which
+ constraints are unified is vital for this.
+ This is a simple form of residuation, the technique of
+ delaying unification steps until enough information
+ is available.
+-}
+congruenceNewtypes :: TcType -> TcType -> TR (TcType,TcType)
+congruenceNewtypes lhs rhs
+ -- TyVar lhs inductive case
+ | Just tv <- getTyVar_maybe lhs
+ = recoverTc (return (lhs,rhs)) $ do
+ Indirect ty_v <- readMetaTyVar tv
+ (_lhs1, rhs1) <- congruenceNewtypes ty_v rhs
+ return (lhs, rhs1)
+-- FunTy inductive case
+ | Just (l1,l2) <- splitFunTy_maybe lhs
+ , Just (r1,r2) <- splitFunTy_maybe rhs
+ = do (l2',r2') <- congruenceNewtypes l2 r2
+ (l1',r1') <- congruenceNewtypes l1 r1
+ return (mkFunTy l1' l2', mkFunTy r1' r2')
+-- TyconApp Inductive case; this is the interesting bit.
+ | Just (tycon_l, _) <- splitNewTyConApp_maybe lhs
+ , Just (tycon_r, _) <- splitNewTyConApp_maybe rhs
+ , tycon_l /= tycon_r
+ = do rhs' <- upgrade tycon_l rhs
+ return (lhs, rhs')
+
+ | otherwise = return (lhs,rhs)