From 1df19823c4d21d96f0c07ab4b3925a019eeb47e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kavon Farvardin <kfarvardin@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:19:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] NCGenerics: update
 `MakeAbstractConformanceForGenericType`

We should just return the builtin conformances for
Copyable/Escapable, since those are the only kinds of
unconditional conformances for these marker protocols.

resolves rdar://125460667
---
 lib/AST/TypeSubstitution.cpp | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/AST/TypeSubstitution.cpp b/lib/AST/TypeSubstitution.cpp
index 9f1f2d4a9b5ad..03e7fb3ec8cc9 100644
--- a/lib/AST/TypeSubstitution.cpp
+++ b/lib/AST/TypeSubstitution.cpp
@@ -251,6 +251,15 @@ operator()(CanType dependentType, Type conformingReplacementType,
         PackConformance::get(conformingPack, conformedProtocol, conformances));
   }
 
+  // All conformances for invertible protocols are builtin, so they're already
+  // abstract in a sense.
+  if (conformedProtocol->getInvertibleProtocolKind()) {
+    auto &ctx = conformedProtocol->getASTContext();
+    return ProtocolConformanceRef(
+        ctx.getBuiltinConformance(conformingReplacementType, conformedProtocol,
+                                  BuiltinConformanceKind::Synthesized));
+  }
+
   assert((conformingReplacementType->is<ErrorType>() ||
           conformingReplacementType->is<SubstitutableType>() ||
           conformingReplacementType->is<DependentMemberType>() ||

From 0ef804134bd15d6524d61149572b7162fd5dc618 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kavon Farvardin <kfarvardin@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:16:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] NCGenerics: change notion of identity map

---
 lib/AST/SubstitutionMap.cpp | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/lib/AST/SubstitutionMap.cpp b/lib/AST/SubstitutionMap.cpp
index 807371a7c9717..f318a0e808231 100644
--- a/lib/AST/SubstitutionMap.cpp
+++ b/lib/AST/SubstitutionMap.cpp
@@ -832,6 +832,15 @@ bool SubstitutionMap::isIdentity() const {
         continue;
     }
 
+    // Is it a builtin conformance to an invertible protocol?
+    if (conf.isConcrete()
+        && conf.getRequirement()->getInvertibleProtocolKind()) {
+      ProtocolConformance *concreteConf = conf.getConcrete();
+      RootProtocolConformance *rootConf = concreteConf->getRootConformance();
+      if (isa<BuiltinProtocolConformance>(rootConf))
+        continue;
+    }
+
     return false;
   }