[ownership] Fix the linear lifetime checker to emit leak fixups for c… #22232
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 smoke test and merge |
|
Jenkins error! |
|
@swift-ci smoke test OS X platform |
|
The failure is b/c we emit /all/ errors now instead of early exiting. |
…ertain loops it didn't handle correctly before. Specifically: bb0: br bb1 bb1: cond_br ..., bb2, bb3 bb2: br bb1 bb3: return What would happen in this case is that we wouldn't revisit bb1 after we found the double consume to grab the leak (and would early exit as well). So we would not insert a destroy for the out of loop value causing a leak from the perspective of the ownership checker. This was due to us early exiting and also due to us not revisiting bb1 after we went around the backedge from bb2 -> bb1. Now what we do instead is if we catch a double consume in a block we have already visited, we check if we haven't visited any of that block's successors. If we haven't, we add that to the list of successors we need to visit.
gottesmm
force-pushed
the
pr-cdad162a7c2bbb546bb8ca3115b35fa2f0798ca9
branch
from
da18e64 to
ac6f318
Compare
|
@swift-ci smoke test and merge |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
…ertain loops it didn't handle correctly before.
Specifically:
bb0:
br bb1
bb1:
cond_br ..., bb2, bb3
bb2:
br bb1
bb3:
return
What would happen in this case is that we wouldn't revisit bb1 after we found
the double consume to grab the leak (and would early exit as well). So we would
not insert a destroy for the out of loop value causing a leak from the
perspective of the ownership checker. This was due to us early exiting and also
due to us not revisiting bb1 after we went around the backedge from bb2 ->
bb1. Now what we do instead is if we catch a double consume in a block we have
already visited, we check if we haven't visited any of that block's
successors. If we haven't, we add that to the list of successors we need to
visit.