aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:1644
if (!LDat) {
- Analyzer->Handler.handleMutexNotHeld("", D, POK, Cp.toString(),
- LK_Shared, Loc);
+ Analyzer->Handler.handleMutexNotHeld("negative capability", D, POK,
+ Cp.toString(), LK_Shared, Loc);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> It's a bit odd that we aren't using `DiagKind` as below, I assume that's
> because this is a negative test and the others are positive tests, but
> doesn't this introduce a terminology difference where a positive failure may
> call it a mutex and a negative failure may call it a negative capability?
> Should this be hooked in to `ClassifyDiagnostic()` (perhaps we need a
> `ClassifyNegativeDiagnostic()`?
My thinking was that whatever the positive capability is called, we should only
talk about a "negative capability" instead of a "negative mutex" or a "negative
role". Also because not holding a capability is in some way its own kind of
capability.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-negative.cpp:46
void foo() {
mu.Lock(); // expected-warning {{acquiring mutex 'mu' requires negative
capability '!mu'}}
baz(); // expected-warning {{cannot call function 'baz' while mutex
'mu' is held}}
----------------
Here we're always referring to a "negative capability", I believe it's
hardcoded into the message.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84603/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84603
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
