Merged
Conversation
Member
|
@bors-servo r+ |
Contributor
|
📌 Commit 120ba6c has been approved by |
Contributor
Contributor
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-github |
Contributor
Author
|
@jdm hate to have to ask again.. but could you please bump another version? hopefully this is the last activity on this crate for a long time :) |
Member
|
Done! |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Fix needed after #268
The fix is only for debug_assert correctness. There's no functional effect.
i.e. version 0.8.6 might cause debug tests to fail, but it isn't a (functionally) breaking change.
Explanation
Moving the lock to be per-bucket changed the
DYNAMIC_SET's API so that it doesn't need to be locked (i.e.DYANMIC_SETis not wrapped with aMutex).The
Atom'sfn dropchanged fromto
(the
lock()is gone)Now when we enter
DYNAMIC_SET.remove(), there's no longer a lock guarantee.Until we lock the bucket, another thread could be in the middle of performing a
DYNAMIC_SET.insert()for the same string.Therefore, the
debug_assert!(value.ref_count.load(SeqCst) == 0)is premature - it needs to occur after we take the lock for the bucket.Caught at swc-project/swc#6980 in a failed test.