-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Internal error: encountered unexpected error in runtime: StackOverflowError() in has_safe_def #43254
Comments
Agh, is it possible to reduce the reproducer a bit further? |
That code is just walking the predecessor list recursively?? The predecessor list is not a DAG, it is cyclic. |
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 30, 2021
…ion analysis Since CFG can be cyclic, the previous implementation of `has_safe_def` that walks predecessors recursively was just wrong. This commit fixes it by making it `has_safe_def` maintain a single set that keeps the identities of basic blocks that have been examined already. Since we still examine each predecessor recursively, this approach doesn't handle cycles very nicely (this commit doesn't come with any sort of fancy tags that indicates a basic block is "being examined", as opposed to inference). But I don't see much motivation to make `has_safe_def` more accurate while keeping it correct, since it's called only in rare cases.
aviatesk
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 30, 2021
…ion analysis Since CFG can be cyclic, the previous implementation of `has_safe_def` that simply walks predecessors recursively was just wrong. This commit fixes it by making it `has_safe_def` maintain a single set that keeps the identities of basic blocks that have been examined already. This commit doesn't come with any sort of fancy tags that indicates a basic block is "being examined" or such, as opposed to inference, and thus this approach doesn't handle cycles very nicely. But still I don't see much motivation to make `has_safe_def` more accurate while keeping it correct, since it's called only in rare cases.
LilithHafner
pushed a commit
to LilithHafner/julia
that referenced
this issue
Feb 22, 2022
…s domination analysis (JuliaLang#43265) Since CFG can be cyclic, the previous implementation of `has_safe_def` that simply walks predecessors recursively was just wrong. This commit fixes it by making `has_safe_def` maintain a single set that keeps the identities of basic blocks that have been examined already.
LilithHafner
pushed a commit
to LilithHafner/julia
that referenced
this issue
Mar 8, 2022
…s domination analysis (JuliaLang#43265) Since CFG can be cyclic, the previous implementation of `has_safe_def` that simply walks predecessors recursively was just wrong. This commit fixes it by making `has_safe_def` maintain a single set that keeps the identities of basic blocks that have been examined already.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
One of our packages started to produce the following error:
see https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/runs/4352506233?check_suite_focus=true#step:5:426.
This is with master I built a few minutes ago:
I have not done a bisect yet, but there are some obvious commits to look at.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: