theuni wrote: > > On a related note, do we emit `-Wthread-safety-negative` for reentrant > > locks? I don't remember that we carved out an exception for that, and we > > probably should. > > We do - and it's deliberate on my part as I've been trying to indicate that > there might be valid use cases for that. While conceptually contradictory, > there might be cases where developers want to ensure a reentrant mutex is NOT > held before entering a function.
Chiming in here with a use-case... My software currently contains a nasty global recursive lock that we hope to (over a long period of time, likely years) convert to non-recursive. In the meantime, and during the refactor, it's helpful to be able to mark some functions as `EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!recursive_mut)` even though technically it wouldn't be a problem. Ideally, that would even "convert" the lock, as far as the annotations go, to non-recursive. That way, from that point on, functions further down the call-stack could no longer double-lock. Though, I suppose that's arguably a different feature altogether. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
