aaronpuchert added a reviewer: aaron.ballman.
aaronpuchert added a comment.
What distinguishes a shared from an exclusive negative capability? Negative
capabilities (as I understand them) express the mutex not being held at all,
meaning neither in shared nor in exclusive mode.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:2188-2190
+/// shared + exclusive = exclusive
+/// generic + exclusive = exclusive
+/// generic + shared = shared
----------------
What do these lines mean? That we accept if a lock is shared in one branch and
exclusive in the other, and that we make it exclusive after the merge point?
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-negative.cpp:135-140
+ if (condition) {
+ assertNotHeld(); // expected-warning {{mutex '!mu' is acquired exclusively
and shared in the same scope}}
+ } else {
+ mu.Lock();
+ mu.Unlock(); // expected-warning {{the other acquisition of mutex '!mu' is
here}}
+ }
----------------
Why would I want these warnings here? This code seems fine to me.
However, I don't see why we don't get `acquiring mutex 'mu' requires negative
capability '!mu'` at line 138, or does that disappear because of the assertion?
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65184/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D65184
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
