aaronpuchert added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52398#1255148, @hokein wrote:
> Hi, @aaronpuchert, the patch has caused many new warnings in our internal
> codebase, below is a reduced one. Do you mind reverting the patch?
>
> // if the condition is not true, CHECK will terminate the program.
> #define CHECK(condition) (__builtin_expect((condition), true)) ? 1 : 0
>
> void foo() {
> CHECK(mu.TryLock());
> mu.Unlock();
> }
>
Even before there was another warning in this code: "releasing mutex 'mu' that
was not held" on `mu.Unlock()`. Is there an example that didn't show any
warnings before?
And can you confirm that the warning also appeared before if you replace
`__builtin_expect(x, *)` by `x`? Both are functionally equivalent.
I will have a closer look, but my first feeling is that the problem is //not//
that we unwrap __builtin_expect, but instead that we don't consider the ternary
operator `?:` in `getTrylockCallExpr`. I'll see if I can fix that.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52398
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
