[SYCL] no exceptions leaking from destructors #14273
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
cperkinsintel
changed the title
cperkinsintel
changed the title
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
…le by main{try/catch}. So moving them to logging as well.
uditagarwal97
approved these changes
Jun 27, 2024
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
cperkinsintel
had a problem deploying
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Failure
EwanC
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2024
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
cperkinsintel
temporarily deployed
to
WindowsCILock
GitHub Actions
Inactive
|
ping to someone on @intel/syclcompat-lib-reviewers team |
joeatodd
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2024
KseniyaTikhomirova
pushed a commit
to KseniyaTikhomirova/llvm
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 1, 2024
Destructors are implicitly noexcept, so we must ensure they don't actually throw exceptions. No change to API or ABI with this PR.
martygrant
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2024
In the same vein as #14273, this PR prevents exceptions from leaking in additional destructors caught by Coverity. I'd like to draw attention to `device_impl.cpp` however: A comment was left suggesting that exceptions in the `device_impl` destructor be added to the asynchronous exceptions list. Given that devices are usually destroyed during shutdown, adding exceptions to the exceptions list doesn't seem to make sense, as there would be nothing to handle the exceptions anyway. However, if this understanding is incorrect, and I should still add exceptions to an asynchronous exceptions list, please let me know. Thanks!
AlexeySachkov
pushed a commit
to AlexeySachkov/llvm
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2024
In the same vein as intel#14273, this PR prevents exceptions from leaking in additional destructors caught by Coverity. I'd like to draw attention to `device_impl.cpp` however: A comment was left suggesting that exceptions in the `device_impl` destructor be added to the asynchronous exceptions list. Given that devices are usually destroyed during shutdown, adding exceptions to the exceptions list doesn't seem to make sense, as there would be nothing to handle the exceptions anyway. However, if this understanding is incorrect, and I should still add exceptions to an asynchronous exceptions list, please let me know. Thanks!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Destructors are implicitly noexcept, so we must ensure they don't actually throw exceptions. No change to API or ABI with this PR.