[Exclusivity] Statically enforce exclusive access in noescape closures #10310
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
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test and merge |
devincoughlin
force-pushed
the
noescape-closure-land
branch
from
04a6e28 to
cea375d
Compare
|
Updated to weaken an assertion and provide test cases that triggered the assertion. |
|
@swift-ci Please test and merge |
Use the AccessSummaryAnalysis to statically enforce exclusive access for noescape closures passed as arguments to functions. We will now diagnose when a function is passed a noescape closure that begins an access on capture when that same capture already has a conflicting access in progress at the time the function is applied. The interprocedural analysis is not yet stored-property sensitive (unlike the intraprocedural analysis), so this will report violations on accesses to separate stored properties of the same struct. rdar://problem/32020710
devincoughlin
force-pushed
the
noescape-closure-land
branch
from
cea375d to
c51fbb9
Compare
|
Updated to add ValueMetatypeInst to the list of whitelisted instructions that currently use an address without an access marker. I also changed the llvm_unreachable for instructions not on this whitelist to an assert() since I am not convinced the whitelist is exhaustive. |
|
@swift-ci Please test and merge |
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test and merge |
devincoughlin
added a commit
to devincoughlin/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2017
swiftlang#10310) Use the AccessSummaryAnalysis to statically enforce exclusive access for noescape closures passed as arguments to functions. We will now diagnose when a function is passed a noescape closure that begins an access on capture when that same capture already has a conflicting access in progress at the time the function is applied. The interprocedural analysis is not yet stored-property sensitive (unlike the intraprocedural analysis), so this will report violations on accesses to separate stored properties of the same struct. rdar://problem/32020710
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.
Use the AccessSummaryAnalysis to statically enforce exclusive access for
noescape closures passed as arguments to functions.
We will now diagnose when a function is passed a noescape closure that begins
an access on capture when that same capture already has a conflicting access
in progress at the time the function is applied.
The interprocedural analysis is not yet stored-property sensitive (unlike the
intraprocedural analysis), so this will report violations on accesses to
separate stored properties of the same struct.
rdar://problem/32020710