ldionne added inline comments.
================ Comment at: libcxx/include/future:556 bool __has_value() const {return (__state_ & __constructed) || (__exception_ != nullptr);} ---------------- jfb wrote: > I'm not auditing everything, but it seems like code above can still access > __state_ without holding __mut_? Like in the dtor. > > Generally this patch lgtm because it's a step forward, but maybe we should > separately refactor the code to make it so that accesses to __state_ require > passing in a reference to lock_guard to show we actually hold __mut_. It > would ignore that reference, but that's a way to enforce, in the type system, > that __state_ is only touched when the lock is held. > > WDYT? I think you're right, and I filed this bug to keep track of the issue: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38688 Not all of them need a lock (some are in the constructor where only one thread has a reference to the data, for example), but most of them probably do. Repository: rCXX libc++ https://reviews.llvm.org/D51170 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits