courbet added a comment. In D153132#4651204 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153132#4651204>, @courbet wrote:
> 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`. The patch without those base changes for reference: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/11d3339daf6f3543d73292b307057769711bce2e. >>> 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
