tbaeder added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:2436
+ CF.getVarDecl()->getLocation());
+ break;
+ }
----------------
aaronpuchert wrote:
> aaronpuchert wrote:
> > tbaeder wrote:
> > > This handles the function call, but without the instance parameter. I was
> > > wondering how to best do that.
> > Should you not simply pass `SxBuilder.createVariable(CF.getVarDecl())` as
> > third parameter in analogy with the `AutomaticObjectDtor` case? It might
> > also make sense to copy the attribute check.
> Can you write a test case that relies on passing the variable? Here is an
> idea:
> ```
> void unlock_scope(Mutex **mu) __attribute__((release_capability(*mu))) {
> mutex_exclusive_unlock(*mu);
> }
>
> Mutex* const CLEANUP(unlock_scope) scope = &mu1;
> mutex_exclusive_lock(*scope);
> // Unlock should happen automatically.
> ```
> I think this is mildly more interesting than the cleanup function with an
> unused parameter.
>
> Unfortunately this is not quite as powerful as a scoped lock in C++, as we
> don't track the identity `scope == &mu1`. So `guarded_by` won't work with
> this. But we can at least see warnings on balanced locking/unlocking.
>
> As for proper scoped locking, we could treat some variable initializations
> like construction of a C++ scoped lock. But let's discuss this separately.
Yeah, it doesn't find the lock; I assume that's because the first parameter
here is not an _actual_ this parameter; I'd have to handle the var decl as a
regular parameter.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152504/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152504
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
