SimplifyCFG: insert compensating destroy when replacing a switch_enum
#84905
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
When replacing a `switch_enum` of an owned enum value with a branch to a non-payload case destination, we need to insert a destroy of the enum value. Fixes a SIL ownership verification failure. swiftlang#84552 rdar://161482601
|
@swift-ci smoke test |
|
lgtm |
eeckstein
added a commit
to eeckstein/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2025
…tch_enum` This is a follow-up of swiftlang#84905, which handles non-copyable enums with a deinit correctly. Also, for copyable enums it's more efficient to use `end_lifetime` than `destroy_value`, because we already know that the enum contains a trivial case. Therefore no destroy operation is needed.
eeckstein
added a commit
to eeckstein/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2025
…tch_enum` This is a follow-up of swiftlang#84905, which handles non-copyable enums with a deinit correctly. Also, for copyable enums it's more efficient to use `end_lifetime` than `destroy_value`, because we already know that the enum contains a trivial case. Therefore no destroy operation is needed.
dendiz
pushed a commit
to dendiz/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 21, 2025
…tch_enum` This is a follow-up of swiftlang#84905, which handles non-copyable enums with a deinit correctly. Also, for copyable enums it's more efficient to use `end_lifetime` than `destroy_value`, because we already know that the enum contains a trivial case. Therefore no destroy operation is needed.
eeckstein
added a commit
to eeckstein/swift
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2025
…tch_enum` This is a follow-up of swiftlang#84905, which handles non-copyable enums with a deinit correctly. Also, for copyable enums it's more efficient to use `end_lifetime` than `destroy_value`, because we already know that the enum contains a trivial case. Therefore no destroy operation is needed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
When replacing a
switch_enumof an owned enum value with a branch to a non-payload case destination, we need to insert a destroy of the enum value.Fixes a SIL ownership verification failure.
#84552
rdar://161482601