EricWF added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14731#373301, @jamesr wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14731#373289, @EricWF wrote: > > > My suggestion would be to make these annotations OFF by default and allow > > users to turn them on with a macro. > > > Our comments crossed streams but suggested the same thing :). Any > suggestions on a naming convention for the guard? Also, would I set this > macro unconditionally in LIT or is there a way to have it run tests both with > and without the macro to ensure that when it is off code like the snippet you > posted continues to build unmodified? My suggestion would be `_LIBCPP_ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY_ANNOTATIONS` but I'm bad at naming things :-P I think we leave the macro off in LIT because each test can `#define` it at the top of the file if it want's it on. http://reviews.llvm.org/D14731 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
