aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52888#1256625, @aaronpuchert wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52888#1256395, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52888#1255862, @aaronpuchert wrote: > > > > > Additional changes (including some non-tail recursion unfortunately) > > > would allow the following to work: > > > > > > void foo16() { > > > if (cond ? mu.TryLock() : false) > > > mu.Unlock(); > > > } > > > > > > void foo17() { > > > if (cond ? true : !mu.TryLock()) > > > return; > > > mu.Unlock(); > > > } > > > > > > > > > Worth the effort, or is that too exotic? > > > > > > `foo16()` looks like code I could plausibly see in the wild. Consider the > > case where the mutex is a pointer and you want to test it for null before > > calling `TryLock()` on it (`M ? M->TryLock() : false`). However, I don't > > have a good feeling for how much work it would be to support that case. > > > It's relatively short, but not exactly straightforward, because we have to > check if both branches are "compatible". However, thinking about this again I > think most programmers would write `foo16` as > > void foo16() { > if (cond && mu.TryLock()) > mu.Unlock(); > } > > > which is functionally equivalent, and which we already support. So I'd > propose to add support for this only when someone asks for it, and leave it > as it is for now. I think that's reasonable. LGTM! Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52888 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
