[PATCH] Sema: reject probably incorrect atomic ordering requests

[JF Bastien]

Isn't that the case with any errors that can crop up in control-flow
sensitive manners, through template magic or tautological compares and
such? I assume David has a better informed opinion on this than I do.


On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi JF,
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
> On 11 March 2014 04:59, JF Bastien <jfb at google.com> wrote:
> > lgtm after adding tests of missing __c11_atomic_* to
> test/Sema/atomic-ops.c,
> > especially load_n/store_n.
>
> I committed it with a full set of tests (r203561), and then changed it
> to a warning (r203564) when I realised valid programs could contain
> statements like:
>
> if (0) {
>   __c11_atomic_load(ptr, memory_order_release);
> }
>
> or possibly even some sane equivalent via templates or other weirdness.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140311/bbc6af41/attachment.html>