aaronpuchert added a comment. In D72635#1912501 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635#1912501>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D72635#1911844 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635#1911844>, @aaronpuchert > wrote: > > > In D72635#1911671 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635#1911671>, @aaron.ballman > > wrote: > > > > > However, do we want to diagnose when the capability strings are different? > > > > > > Now if I acquire capabilities of different types, then the order also has > > to incorporate these different types. So my answer would be no, I think we > > have to allow this. > > > Okay, I think that makes sense, but is probably something we should mention > explicitly in the thread safety documentation so we don't lose track of why > this is the way it is. WDYT? Yes, the documentation could use an overhaul, the behavior of scoped capabilities could also be documented better <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335049>. I have this on my agenda, and I hope I can carve out time for that soon. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
