Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
[class-parse] Update parameter names backwards
Context: 8ccb837 Context: dotnet/android-libraries#413 Context: https://discord.com/channels/732297728826277939/732297837953679412/902301741159182346 Context: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/kotlin/kotlin-stdlib/1.5.31/kotlin-stdlib-1.5.31.jar Context: https://discord.com/channels/732297728826277939/732297837953679412/902554256035426315 dotnet/android-libraries#413 ran into an issue: D:\a\1\s\generated\org.jetbrains.kotlin.kotlin-stdlib\obj\Release\net6.0-android\generated\src\Kotlin.Coroutines.AbstractCoroutineContextElement.cs(100,8): error CS1002: ; expected The offending line: var this = Java.Lang.Object.GetObject<Java.Lang.Object> (native_this, JniHandleOwnership.DoNotTransfer); (Assigning to `this` makes for a very weird error message.) This was eventually tracked down to commit 8ccb837; @jpobst wrote: > previously it produced: > > <parameter name="initial" type="R" jni-type="TR;" /> > <parameter name="operation" type="kotlin.jvm.functions.Function2<? super R, ? super kotlin.coroutines.CoroutineContext.Element, ? extends R>" /> > > now it produces: > > <parameter name="this" type="R" jni-type="TR;" /> > <parameter name="initial" type="kotlin.jvm.functions.Function2<? super R, ? super kotlin.coroutines.CoroutineContext.Element, ? extends R>" /> The (a?) "source" of the problem is that Kotlin is "weird": it emits a Java method with signature: /* partial */ class AbstractCoroutineContextElement { public Object fold(Object initial, Function2 operation); } However, the local variables table declares *three* local variables: 1. `this` of type `kotlin.coroutines.CoroutineContext.Element` 2. `initial` of type `java.lang.Object` 3. `operation` of type `Function2` This is an instance method, so normally we would skip the first local variable, as "normally" the first local variable of an instance method has the same type as the declaring type. The "weirdness" with Kotlin is that the first local parameter type is *not* the same as the declaring type, it's of a "random" implemented interface type! % mono class-parse.exe --dump kotlin/coroutines/AbstractCoroutineContextElement.class … ThisClass: Utf8("kotlin/coroutines/AbstractCoroutineContextElement") … 3: fold (Ljava/lang/Object;Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function2;)Ljava/lang/Object; Public Code(13, Unknown[LineNumberTable](6), LocalVariableTableAttribute( LocalVariableTableEntry(Name='this', Descriptor='Lkotlin/coroutines/CoroutineContext$Element;', StartPC=0, Index=0), LocalVariableTableEntry(Name='initial', Descriptor='Ljava/lang/Object;', StartPC=0, Index=1), LocalVariableTableEntry(Name='operation', Descriptor='Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function2;', StartPC=0, Index=2))) Signature(<R:Ljava/lang/Object;>(TR;Lkotlin/jvm/functions/Function2<-TR;-Lkotlin/coroutines/CoroutineContext$Element;+TR;>;)TR;) RuntimeInvisibleParameterAnnotationsAttribute(Parameter0(), Parameter1(Annotation('Lorg/jetbrains/annotations/NotNull;', {}))) … (Here, we "expect" the `this` local variable to be of type `kotlin.coroutines.AbstractCoroutineContextElement`, but it is instead of type `kotlin.coroutines.CoroutineContext.Element`.) This "type mismatch" means that our logic to skip the first local variable doesn't actually skip the first local variable. As a solution, @jpobst [suggested][0]: > if we took all `StartPC=0` parameters, sorted them by `Index`, and > then applied them to our parameters in reverse order, would that > simplify the logic of removing the ones at the beginning like > `$this$find`? Do that: instead of trying to figure out which local variables to skip at the beginning, instead look at the *end* of the parameter and local variables lists, and move "backwards" towards the front. This allows us to infer and skip the `this` local variable, as it's the one that doesn't have a matching parameter position. [0]: https://discord.com/channels/732297728826277939/732297837953679412/902554256035426315
- Loading branch information