Skip to content

[SYCL] Restore ABI-combatibility for local_accessor ctor #17510

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 18, 2025

Conversation

aelovikov-intel
Copy link
Contributor

Initially broken in #17147.

// Must not be/isn't called, user-facing APIs do error-checking.
std::abort();
#endif
return nullptr;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we confirm that the return value is not used ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you mean? If somebody is actually using it, then it's UB and their fault.

@rolandschulz
Copy link
Contributor

My understanding is that #17147 only broke ABI compatibility for code which was UB. We provide no ABI guarantee for UB code, correct? Therefore I don't think this change is needed.

@aelovikov-intel
Copy link
Contributor Author

My understanding is that #17147 only broke ABI compatibility for code which was UB. We provide no ABI guarantee for UB code, correct? Therefore I don't think this change is needed.

Yes, it was UB, but it was our code (local_accessor_base::GDBMethodsAnchor inline method called internally from local_accessor ctor), so we can't really "break" that and this PR is needed.

@aelovikov-intel aelovikov-intel merged commit a6a1a39 into intel:sycl Mar 18, 2025
21 checks passed
@aelovikov-intel aelovikov-intel deleted the local-acc-fix branch March 18, 2025 21:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants