JonasToth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/cppcoreguidelines-use-raii-locks.cpp:90
+ for (auto i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
+ m.lock();
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:5: warning: use RAII
----------------
JonasToth wrote:
> lewmpk wrote:
> > JonasToth wrote:
> > > I got another one that I think defeats the analysis:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > while (true)
> > > {
> > >
> > > my_label:
> > > m.lock();
> > >
> > > if (some_condition)
> > > goto my_label;
> > >
> > > m.unlock();
> > > }
> > > ```
> > > Usage of `goto` can interfer and make the situation more complicated. I
> > > am not asking you to implement that correctly (not sure if even possible
> > > with pure clang-tidy) but I think a pathological example should be
> > > documented for the user.
> > why would this defeat the analysis?
> Because `goto` allows you to reorder you code-locations, so the ordering of
> what comes before what is not so ez.
let me restate: You are comparing the occurences of `lock` and `unlock` by
linenumber, so physical appearance in the source code. `goto` allows you to
jump wildly through your code, so that physical appearance does not match
actual control flow.
I am not saying that you need to resolve that (not easily done within
clang-tidy), but documenting it is worth it.
And if you mix `goto` and locking mechanisms, you get what you deserve, which
is no help from tooling ;)
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58818/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58818
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
