aaronpuchert added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst:471 - + ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Sanity checks on attribute syntax. + + ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Validation checks on attribute syntax. + ``-Wthread-safety-analysis``: The core analysis. ---------------- Quuxplusone wrote: > I'd just say "Rejects invalid attribute syntax." But also > - surely this is totally obvious, that invalid syntax causes an error? why do > we even need to write this? > - line 469 says "three" but then there are four bullet points It's more about semantics than syntax, i.e. something like “this attribute doesn't make sense on such a declaration.” The full (current) list of warning messages is on https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wthread-safety-attributes. (Even “ignoring //A// attribute because its argument is invalid” is actually just saying that we don't understand the AST.) "Validation checks" feels like a hendiadys and doesn't really add anything. Indeed something like “Semantic (checks|validation) for thread safety attributes” would be most accurate. Though maybe @aaron.ballman has a better idea. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114562/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114562 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
