aaronpuchert added a comment. Hmm, I have been wondering about this as well. The way I see it, all of these things are what we call //capabilities//, and we treat them all the same. The names are just meant to make warning messages more readable, because what the analysis considers a capability, the user might know as a //mutex//, or //role//, or //sequence//.
I think I'll read a bit of code to see if this is really true and there are no functional differences between the differently named capabilities, but other than that I've no objections to allowing arbitrary names. I'm trying to come up with potential problems caused by opening the flood gates, but frankly I don't see any. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
