aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-negative.cpp:87-89
+ void test4() {
+ MutexLock lock(&mu); // expected-warning {{acquiring mutex 'mu' requires
negative capability '!mu'}}
+ }
----------------
lebedev.ri wrote:
> aaronpuchert wrote:
> > @lebedev.ri, I think that's pretty much your case. On my original change,
> > this would have also warned about `scope`, not just `mu`.
> I think i'm missing the point here.
> I originally reverted this because the diagnostics i was seeing were pretty
> unambiguously )to me) bogus.
> But the only test change since then ensures that diagnostic is emitted in
> some case,
> there are no tests to ensure it is not emitted in some cases.
> So either my revert was wrong, or this still is either issuing seemingly
> bogus diagnostic,
> or lacks test coverage that it doesn't issue said diagnostic.
>
> Which one is it?
This test fails on the original, reverted change as follows:
```
error: 'warning' diagnostics seen but not expected:
File [...]/clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-negative.cpp Line 88:
acquiring mutex 'lock' requires negative capability '!lock'
1 error generated.
```
Maybe you're not familiar with the `-verify` mechanism: it doesn't just check
that the expected errors/warnings/notes are emitted, it also checks that
nothing more is emitted.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84604/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84604
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
