[Concurrency] Correct memory effect attributes of task_create #82179
Conversation
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
Without this, llvm would sometimes wrongly assume there's no indirect accesses and the optimizations can lead to a runtime crash, by optimizing away initializing options properly. Resolves rdar://152548190
ktoso
force-pushed
the
wip-fix-incorrect-memory-effects-on-task-create
branch
from
73b6746 to
3aa28b4
Compare
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
| name: String? = nil, | ||
| priority: TaskPriority? = nil, | ||
| % # NOTE: This closure cannot be 'sending' because we'll trigger ' pattern that the region based isolation checker does not understand how to check' | ||
| % # In this case: `func syncOnMyGlobalActor() { Task.immediate { @MyGlobalActor in } }` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we actually did adopt sending here already, so we can remove the comment about needing to do so when a bug was fixed
| // 69: - async work on queue | ||
| // 71: Inner thread id = 0x00007000054f5000 | ||
| // 72: Current thread id = 0x000070000567e000 | ||
| // 73: inside immediate, done [thread:0x000070000567e000] @ :414 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no need to keep this in tree, was debug information
| Task.immediate(name: "hello") { @MainActor in print("Task.immediate { @MainActor } (\(Task.name!))") } | ||
| Task.immediate() { @MainActor in print("Task.immediate { @MainActor }") } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
testing both with names and not, to be "extra" sure these don't regress somehow
fhahn
left a comment
fhahn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense to me, IIUC it accesses memory via pointers loaded from the arguments, hence argmemonly is not correct.
rjmccall
left a comment
rjmccall
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. It'd be nice to have a weaker version of argmemonly that only allows accesses to memory reachable from arguments, but argmemonly is quite clear that it is not that.
|
@swift-ci please smoke test |
|
Thanks for review folks |
3 participants
Without this, llvm would sometimes wrongly assume there's no indirect
accesses and the optimizations can lead to a runtime crash, by
optimizing away initializing options properly.
Resolves rdar://152548190