rupprecht added a comment. In D104261#2844636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261#2844636>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> In D104261#2841356 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261#2841356>, @delesley > wrote: > >> since it's restricted to relockable managed locks, I'm not too worried... > > Not quite, it affects scoped locks with explicit unlock, which was supported > before D49885 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D49885>. > > @rupprecht, can you still test patches on Google's code? Would be good to > know if this breaks anything. Thanks for the heads up. I ran this on the same targets that broke in D84604 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84604> (in case that's what you're looking for), and those continue to pass. I can try further testing of other targets, but that may take a little longer, so I have no problem with you landing this as-is and I can follow up if there are problems elsewhere. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104261 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
