You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Because `_taskLocalValuePush` and `_taskLocalValuePop` can result in calls
to `swift_task_alloc` and `swift_task_dealloc` respectively, and because
the compiler hasn't been taught about that (e.g.
`SILInstruction::isAllocatingStack`,
`SILInstruction::isDeallocatingStack`, etc), calling them (push and pop)
from a function which makes use the stack for dynamically sized
allocations can result in violations of stack discipline of the form
```
swift_task_alloc // allocates %ptr_1
copy_value_witness // copies into %ptr_1
swift_task_localValuePush // calls swift_task_alloc and allocates %ptr_2
swift_task_dealloc // deallocates %ptr_1
swift_task_localValuePop // calls swift_task_dealloc and deallocates %ptr_2
```
Avoid the problem by not allocating dynamically sized stack space in the
function which calls `_taskLocalValuePush` and `_taskLocalValuePop`.
Split the calls to those functions into `withValueImpl` function which
takes its argument `__owned`. Call that function from `withValue`,
ensuring that the necessary copy (to account for the fact that withValue
takes its argument `__guaranteed` but `_taskLocalValuePush` takes its
`__owned`) and associated stack traffic occur in `withValue`.
Still, allow `withValueImpl` to be inlined. The stack nesting will be
preserved across it.
rdar://107275872
0 commit comments