Good idea; will do. -DeLesley
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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 | [email protected] | >> 505-206-0315 >> > > -- DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 505-206-0315
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
