aaron.ballman added reviewers: aaronpuchert, delesley. aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D72635#1822686 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635#1822686>, @eti-p-doray wrote: > I added an example in the description. > > From doc https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html, > it sounds like we should be allowed to declare our class with > CAPABILITY("context"), but it turns out that only "mutex" and "role" are > allowed. > I could otherwise update this CL to allow any string (single word > lowercase?) as CAPABILITY? I had to hop in a time machine to figure out what we were thinking with restricting the names to just `role` and `mutex` and did not see any reasonable rationale for the restriction and I'm in favor of lifting it now. I think the correct way forward here is to remove the diagnostic (allowing arbitrary capability names), remove the `isRole()` and `isMutex()` accessors from the attribute definition in Attr.td (they're unused), and then update the documentation to make it more clear that we allow arbitrary names for capabilities. Adding a few more people who use these attributes to see if there are concerns with this approach. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
