Serialization: Fix crash when deserializing store_unowned SIL instruction [4.1] #13419
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
…ll pointer dereferences into assertions
…tion We were casting the operand type to a WeakStorageType when in fact it is an UnownedStorageType. Fixes <rdar://problem/35980211>.
|
@swift-ci Please test |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description: We would crash in deserialization when deserializing the store_unowned instruction.
Scope of the issue: Now that we preserve SIL when merging modules, there are more ways to trigger this in normal code, but in Swift 4.0 you could hit this by an
@inline(__always)function that assigned to an unowned property.Origination: Bug was present in the original implementation of "new" unowned properties that was added to Swift 3.0.
Risk: Very low, it's a trivial fix.
Tested: New test case added.
Radar: rdar://problem/35980211.
Reviewed by: @jckarter