courbet added a comment. In D153131#4653664 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153131#4653664>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> In D153131#4653564 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D153131#4653564>, @courbet wrote: > >> We have a large number of users of `-Werror -Wthread-safety-analysis` >> internally. When we make the new warnings part of that flag we cannot >> integrate because we're breaking all these users. > > The proposal was to include it in `-Wthread-safety-reference`, not > `-Wthread-safety-analysis`. See > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wthread-safety for the > existing flags and their relations. Sorry, I meant `-Wthread-safety-reference`. >> If we don't integrate we can't run the new analysis to see what we would >> need to fix. > > Can you not add `-Wno-error=thread-safety-reference-return` together with the > integration? Or are there too many places adding it independently? Yes, we have way too many instances. I'm going to discuss with people dealing with integrates to see whether disabling the new flag globally is a possibility. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153131/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153131 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
