[silgen] When transforming values into an existential box representat… #17085
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
…ion, do it at +1. In general, SILGen assumes that only +1 values are "forwarded" into memory. This is because we want any value that is stored in memory to not be dependent on other values and for the forwarded object to be able to maintain its own liveness. So this assert was correct to fire. The specific test case that exposed this issue is: What happened here is that we needed to reabstract a loadable value into an existential and tried to maximally abstract it and thus store it into memory. The That code was never updated to make sure the value was at +1. So we would store a guaranteed value into memory and hope that whereever we stored it doesn't escape the current function. In this case, I believe that we would be safe... but past returns are not indicators of future results. rdar://40773543 SR-7858
|
@swift-ci smoke 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
…ion, do it at +1.
In general, SILGen assumes that only +1 values are "forwarded" into memory. This
is because we want any value that is stored in memory to not be dependent on
other values and for the forwarded object to be able to maintain its own
liveness. So this assert was correct to fire.
The specific test case that exposed this issue is:
What happened here is that we needed to reabstract a loadable value into an
existential and tried to maximally abstract it and thus store it into
memory. The That code was never updated to make sure the value was at +1. So we
would store a guaranteed value into memory and hope that whereever we stored it
doesn't escape the current function. In this case, I believe that we would be
safe... but past returns are not indicators of future results.
rdar://40773543
SR-7858