[cfe-commits] [PATCH] Thread-safety analysis: downgrade lockable requirement from error to warning.

[Delesley Hutchins]

Good idea; will do.

  -DeLesley

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote:

> LGTM; one trivial comment added to codereview.
>
> I also have some suggestions for diagnostic wording, but they're unrelated
> to the patch itself:
>  def warn_attribute_argument_not_lockable : Warning< "%0 attribute
> requires arguments whose type is annotated "  "with 'lockable'
> attribute">, InGroup<ThreadSafety>, DefaultIgnore;
>
> It would be useful for this diagnostic to point at the problematic
> argument and mention its type: "'guarded_by' attribute argument type
> 'MyMutex' is not annotated with 'lockable' attribute"
>
> def warn_attribute_argument_not_class : Warning< "%0 attribute requires
> arguments that are class type or point to class type">, InGroup<ThreadSafety>,
> DefaultIgnore;
> This would read more naturally as "requires arguments that are of class
> type or pointer to class type". It would be useful to include the type here
> too.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Delesley Hutchins <delesley at google.com>wrote:
>
>> This patch downgrades the requirement that mutex expressions must
>> refer to lockable objects from an error message to a warning.  The
>> rest of the thread safety analysis works fine even if the class is not
>> lockable, so there is no reason to break the build just because a
>> class is missing the LOCKABLE attribute.
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/5820063/
>>
>>  -DeLesley
>>
>> --
>> DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | delesley at google.com |
>> 505-206-0315
>>
>
>


-- 
DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | delesley at google.com | 505-206-0315
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120322/19fa69cc/attachment.html>