aaron.ballman added a comment. In D129755#3796799 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3796799>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> In D129755#3779997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3779997>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Please be sure to add a release note for the changes! > > Any opinion as to what the release note might say? I'm asking since we > dropped the documentation changes. No strong opinion, but `Technically this could break existing code, but the current handling seems unexpected enough to justify this change.` suggests we should be mentioning to users what we changed and what code could theoretically break. > Perhaps I should add them back in, but without function bodies (thus > eliminating the need to add `NO_THREAD_SAFETY_ANALYSIS`)? Something like this: > > // Same as constructors, but without tag types. (Requires C++17 copy > elision.) > static MutexLocker Lock(Mutex *mu) ACQUIRE(mu); > static MutexLocker Adopt(Mutex *mu) REQUIRES(mu); > static MutexLocker ReaderLock(Mutex *mu) ACQUIRE_SHARED(mu); > static MutexLocker AdoptReaderLock(Mutex *mu) REQUIRES_SHARED(mu); > static MutexLocker DeferLock(Mutex *mu) EXCLUDES(mu); > > Then I could write in the note that this is now possible, and annotations on > move constructors are without effect. I'd be okay with that! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
