courbet added a comment. In D153132#4647557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4647557>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> In D153132#4431627 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4431627>, @courbet wrote: > >>> Is this actually required for the subsequent change? I don't see the >>> connection. >> >> In the followup change, we have to check the returns after the enter and >> exit CFG block are computed. We can't analyze the returns as they are seen >> because , because what matters for the returns is the locks that are live at >> the end of the function, not those that are live at the point where the >> `return` happens. > > Is this still the case? Or do we not need this anymore. So the change we still actually need is for `checkAccess()` to take the fact set as a parameter (because we're checking two different fact sets depending on whether we're processing a return statement or not). I think that design-wise it's better if `checkAccess` is in the `Analyzer` rather than the `BuildLockset`, because `checkAccess()` no longer needs access to any state within `BuildLockset`. >> From a design perspective I think it might actually make more sens for them >> to be in the analyzer as `warnIfMutexNotHeld` and friends actually inspects >> quite a lot of the `Analyzer` state. > > On that I agree. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
