================
@@ -608,15 +606,31 @@ static bool checkTryLockFunAttrCommon(Sema &S, Decl *D,
const ParsedAttr &AL,
if (!AL.checkAtLeastNumArgs(S, 1))
return false;
- if (!isIntOrBool(AL.getArgAsExpr(0))) {
+ // The attribute's first argument defines the success value.
+ const Expr *SuccessArg = AL.getArgAsExpr(0);
+ if (!isa<CXXNullPtrLiteralExpr>(SuccessArg) &&
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
I can see the appeal of `nullptr` in the attribute, but it suggests you can put
arbitrary pointers in there, and I don't think we want that. But I can live
with it.
Though it seems strange that one would return a pointer, and `nullptr` is
success. Maybe an error message? More typical is probably to have `nullptr` if
the lock couldn't be acquired.
In any event, since we want to able to express both the null and non-null case,
conversion to `bool` seems the better conceptual framework. How much we need
bother users with that framework is another question, but it's probably not a
bad idea to bring home the idea that we're not trying to track pointers.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95290
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
