melver wrote: > I've been trying to implement this in `ThreadSafety.cpp`, and it does seem to > work, but I ended up at the same conclusion that you had originally: that we > don't need to warn about this. It's certainly a strange thing to write, but > warnings are mostly about preventing accidental mistakes, and this doesn't > seem like something that would accidentally happen. You need to implement > `operator!` for your reentrant capability and then explicitly add negative > requirements. (With #150857 we're not going to ask you for that.) So it's a > weird thing thing to write, but you know what you're doing, and we will > propagate the negative capability according to the usual rules.
Thanks for investigating. Let's shelve this one. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141599 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
