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:
> aaronpuchert wrote:
> > 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.
> I may still be confused or thinking of this differently, but I would assume
> that a negative mutex would be a mutex that's explicitly not held, which you
> may want to ensure on a function boundary to avoid deadlock. From that, I'd
> have guessed we would want the diagnostic to read `cannot call function 'bar'
> while mutex 'mu' is held` or `calling function 'bar' requires mutex 'mu' to
> not be held` because that's more clear than talking about negative
> capabilities (when the user is thinking in terms of mutexes which are or
> aren't held).
Now I get it. I don't see an issue with that, but we need to distinguish
between `EXCLUDES(mu)` and `REQUIRES(!mu)`. The former will produce "cannot
call function 'bar' while mutex 'mu' is held" and we probably want the latter
to produce a different warning message.
Now one argument for the existing scheme remains that with
`-Wthread-safety-negative`, if you see a warning like "acquiring mutex 'mu'
requires negative capability '!mu'" on a lock operation, you know you can fix
that by adding `REQUIRES(!mu)` to your function.
If we say "warning: acquiring mutex 'mu' requires mutex 'mu' not to be held" it
might not be as clear what we want.
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
