🍒[5.9][Concurrency] Handle missing Job type in old SDKs in tryDiagnoseExecutor #65413
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
ktoso
changed the title
|
@swift-ci please test |
DougGregor
approved these changes
Apr 25, 2023
ktoso
changed the title
|
@swift-ci please test and merge |
ktoso
deleted the
pick-tryDiagnoseExecutor-must-survive-missing-job-type
branch
ktoso
added
concurrency
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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: When a new compiler is used with an old SDK, we may not have any Job or ExecutorJob types. The code missed to initialize the local variable as nullptr, and this could be uninitialized when this happened, wrongly entering
if (decl)protected code and then crash. This replaces, or complements, #65406 with adding a test that would have triggered the issue -- an SDK that is missing Job and ExecutorJob declarations.Risk: Low, just initializing a local variable
Review by: @hborla @xedin
Testing: CI testing, added test covering this situation with a mock-sdk
Original PR: #65412
Radar: rdar://108458906