You can commit. But I don't want to leave error messages in a weird state for too long.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Delesley Hutchins <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The patch looks good overall. However, I'm a little bit concerned >> about the error messages. Since the attributes are defined through >> macros, and the macro at google is still LOCKABLE, the message "... >> annotated with 'capability' attribute ..." is likely to cause >> confusion. I seem to recall that somebody else implemented a system >> to find out whether a macro had been defined for a given attribute. >> Given the multiple spellings we now have for thread safety attributes, >> it seems like a good idea to map warning messages to whatever macros >> the user actually happens to be using. > > I definitely agree that capability diagnostics need a good round of > love. Using the macros, if any, would be a good change. Also, we may > need to pay attention to terminology like role vs mutex vs lock vs > capability in our existing diagnostics. > > I'm assuming that these changes wouldn't block this particular commit, > or is that something you'd like to see implemented prior to committing > this patch? > > ~Aaron -- DeLesley Hutchins | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 505-206-0315 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
