rupprecht added a comment. In D129755#3869081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3869081>, @aaronpuchert wrote:
> In D129755#3866887 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755#3866887>, @rupprecht > wrote: > >> I might have a better answer in a day or two of how widespread this is >> beyond just the core files that seem to make the world break when we enable >> this. We can just fix the bugs it if it's only a few of them, but it might >> be difficult if we have too many. > > The good news is that for now we've only seen the second category of issues, > for which a flag to restore the old behavior would be feasible. I can't say > for certain whether that would make all the issues here disappear, but it > definitely seems so. We're about done with our cleanup. Our fix count is at 34, and should be final unless there are surprises. I'm not sure if others would benefit from having this warning pushed to a subflag, but we don't need it anymore. While making some fixes, I ran across a strange false positive which I filed as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/58535. I think it's another situation where the code is too complex for thread analysis to be feasible, but I also didn't see it documented as one of the common cases that isn't supported. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129755 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
