================
@@ -0,0 +1,471 @@
+// RUN: %check_clang_tidy -std=c++17-or-later %s modernize-use-scoped-lock %t
-- -- -isystem %clang_tidy_headers -fno-delayed-template-parsing
+
+#include <mutex>
+
+void Positive() {
+ std::mutex m;
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(m);
+ }
+
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(std::adopt_lock, m);
+ }
+
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:33: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ }
+
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m), l2(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:40: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ }
+
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m), l2(m), l3(m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-3]]:40: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-4]]:47: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-4]]:33: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ }
+
+ {
+ std::lock(m, m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:33: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ int a = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l3(m);
+ int b = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l4(std::adopt_lock, m);
+ }
+}
+
+
+std::mutex p_m1;
+void PositiveShortFunction() {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(p_m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(p_m1);
+}
+
+
+void PositiveNested() {
+ std::mutex m1;
+ if (true) {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(m1);
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:7: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l2(m1);
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m1);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:9: warning: use single
'std::scoped_lock' instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:37: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ }
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:9: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l2(m1);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(m1);
+}
+
+
+void PositiveInsideArg(std::mutex &m1, std::mutex &m2, std::mutex &m3) {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m1);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m2);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:3: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:31: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ int a = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m3);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l3(m3);
+}
+
+
+void PositiveInsideConditional() {
+ std::mutex m1;
+ if (true) {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m1);
+ } else {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m1);
+ }
+
+ while (true) {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m1);
+ }
+
+ for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m1);
+ }
+}
+
+void PositiveLambda() {
+ std::mutex m;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m);
+ auto lambda1 = [&]() {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m);
+ };
+
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:3: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:31: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ auto lamda2 = [&]() {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:33: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ };
+
+ auto lamda3 = [&]() {
+ std::lock(m, m);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:5: warning: use single 'std::scoped_lock'
instead of multiple 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-2]]:33: note: additional 'std::lock_guard'
declared here
+ int a = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l3(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l3(m);
+ int b = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l4(m, std::adopt_lock);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l4(std::adopt_lock, m);
+ };
+
+ auto lamda4 = [&]() {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l1(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l1(m);
+ int a = 0;
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l2(m);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l2(m);
+ };
+}
+
+template <typename T>
+void PositiveTemplated() {
+ std::mutex m1, m2, m3;
+ {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m1);
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use 'std::scoped_lock' instead
of 'std::lock_guard'
+ // CHECK-FIXES: std::scoped_lock l(m1);
----------------
vbvictor wrote:
TBH, I don't know how to approach this issue right now since it doesn't show on
the `main`.
Different template AST representations seems odd to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126434
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
