aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:868
ThreadSafetyHandler &Handler) const override {
- if (!managed() && !asserted() && !negative() && !isUniversal()) {
+ if (!asserted() && !negative() && !isUniversal()) {
Handler.handleMutexHeldEndOfScope("mutex", toString(), loc(), JoinLoc,
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> One might ask: what about asserted capabilities? I plan to introduce a
> warning when they are released, because that can't be consistent, and then
> they can't disappear on back edges without warning.
>
> For negative capabilities we'd presumably see a warning for the "positive"
> capability instead.
>
> Not sure how universal capabilities are typically used. Presumably one could
> release such a capability in a loop? Then on the other hand, code using such
> capabilities is probably not very interested in false negatives.
> For negative capabilities we'd presumably see a warning for the "positive"
> capability instead.
No, because a back edge is missing a positive capability when I'm unlocking in
a loop, whereas it would be missing a negative capability when I'm locking in a
loop.
But we probably want to warn about this only when `-Wthread-safety-negative` is
active.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
