aaron.ballman added a comment. In D72635#1825219 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635#1825219>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> Hmm, I have been wondering about this as well. The way I see it, all of these > things are what we call //capabilities//, and we treat them all the same. The > names are just meant to make warning messages more readable, because what the > analysis considers a capability, the user might know as a //mutex//, or > //role//, or //sequence//. Yup, that was intentional. We started out with thread safety analysis using "lock" terminology everywhere, but then switched to "capability" analysis which is roughly the same thing using more generic terms. > I think I'll read a bit of code to see if this is really true and there are > no functional differences between the differently named capabilities, but > other than that I've no objections to allowing arbitrary names. I'm trying to > come up with potential problems caused by opening the flood gates, but > frankly I don't see any. > > Edit: I've gone through `ThreadSafety.cpp` and `AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp` > and it seems that we indeed only write the name into the diagnostic. Thank you for double-checking -- I had come to the same conclusion myself. 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
