user0/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

fix release_lock_until to no longer remove inactive locks

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Ralf Jung 2017-06-22 21:42:46 -07:00 • committed by Oliver Schneider
parent fda5cc9b4c
commit aaae815b44
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: A69F8D225B3AD7D9
1 changed files with 8 additions and 7 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
src/librustc_mir/interpret/memory.rs
View file

@ -545,13 +545,13 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Memory<'a, 'tcx> {
}
let cur_frame = self.cur_frame;
let alloc = self.get_mut(ptr.alloc_id)?;
let lock_infos = alloc.locks.get_mut(&MemoryRange::new(ptr.offset, len))
.ok_or(EvalError::InvalidMemoryLockRelease { ptr, len })?;
// Find the lock. There can only be one active write lock, so this is uniquely defined.
let lock_info_idx = lock_infos.iter().position(|lock_info| lock_info.status == LockStatus::Held)
.ok_or(EvalError::InvalidMemoryLockRelease { ptr, len })?;
{
let lock_infos = alloc.locks.get_mut(&MemoryRange::new(ptr.offset, len)).ok_or(EvalError::InvalidMemoryLockRelease { ptr, len })?;
let lock_info = match lock_infos.len() {
0 => return Err(EvalError::InvalidMemoryLockRelease { ptr, len }),
1 => &mut lock_infos[0],
_ => bug!("There can not be overlapping locks when write access is possible."),
};
let lock_info = &mut lock_infos[lock_info_idx];
assert_eq!(lock_info.lifetime.frame, cur_frame);
if let Some(ce) = release_until {
lock_info.status = LockStatus::RecoverAfter(ce);
@ -559,7 +559,8 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Memory<'a, 'tcx> {
}
}
// Falling through to here means we want to entirely remove the lock. The control-flow is somewhat weird because of lexical lifetimes.
alloc.locks.remove(&MemoryRange::new(ptr.offset, len));
lock_infos.remove(lock_info_idx);
// TODO: It may happen now that we leave an empty vector in the map. Is it worth getting rid of them?
Ok(())
}