Feel free to submit as-is to get bots green and make progress. See comments below -- we should discuss those separately. I'll try to send a cfe-dev email when I can?
================ Comment at: docs/LanguageExtensions.rst:1609 @@ +1608,3 @@ + +Use ``__attribute__((no_thread_safety_analysis))`` on a function declaration +to specify that checks for data races on plain (non-atomic) memory accesses ---------------- I actually find it really unfortunate that this attribute and the -Wthread-safety escape hatch attribute are the same. I suspect there are many scenarios where users can't accomodate the reduced programming model checked by -Wthread-safety, use this attribute to escape that analysis, and would still like TSan to point out the actual races. Thoughts? ================ Comment at: docs/MemorySanitizer.rst:83 @@ -82,1 +82,3 @@ +``__attribute__((no_uninitialized_checks))`` +----------------------------------------------- ---------------- I think we should aim for more consistency across the attribute names. I think that will benefit users more than anything else... Is there a reason not to tie these to the 'sanitize' naming scheme? http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D390 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
