aaron.ballman accepted this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM! ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst:471 - + ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Sanity checks on attribute syntax. + + ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Validation checks on attribute syntax. + ``-Wthread-safety-analysis``: The core analysis. ---------------- aaronpuchert wrote: > Quuxplusone wrote: > > I'd just say "Rejects invalid attribute syntax." But also > > - surely this is totally obvious, that invalid syntax causes an error? why > > do we even need to write this? > > - line 469 says "three" but then there are four bullet points > It's more about semantics than syntax, i.e. something like “this attribute > doesn't make sense on such a declaration.” The full (current) list of warning > messages is on > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wthread-safety-attributes. > (Even “ignoring //A// attribute because its argument is invalid” is actually > just saying that we don't understand the AST.) > > "Validation checks" feels like a hendiadys and doesn't really add anything. > Indeed something like “Semantic (checks|validation) for thread safety > attributes” would be most accurate. Though maybe @aaron.ballman has a better > idea. TIL what `hendiadys` means. I think the currently proposed wording is reasonable (it's not just about syntax, as @aaronpuchert says, it's also about semantic checks). Really, this groups is about diagnostics that relate to incorrect use of the attribute itself, not the analysis supported by the attribute and "semantic checks" works for that). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114562/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
