tbaeder abandoned this revision.
tbaeder added a comment.
As discussed via other channels, this is going nowhere and we will take another
approach, if any.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001
aaronpuchert added a comment.
We probably parse the attributes delayed in C++ but not in C. This probably
also means you can't refer to later members in the attribute, so the mutex
always needs to come first, right? Not sure if such a limitation is expected
for C developers.
Repository:
rG
tbaeder added a comment.
Ping
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
tbaeder added a comment.
Didn't remember and re-checked, using it that way makes the implementation
harder I think:
tsa2.c:7:54: error: incomplete definition of type 'struct Mutex'
7 | int counter GUARDED_BY(__builtin_instance_member(M)->M);
|
aaronpuchert added a comment.
I'm wondering why you chose this over a direct equivalent to `this`, say
`__builtin_instance()`, such that instead of `__builtin_instance_member(M)` one
would write `__builtin_instance().M` or `__builtin_instance()->M`? While
allowing to reference the same fields,
tbaeder added a comment.
Ping
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153001
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
tbaeder created this revision.
tbaeder added reviewers: aaronpuchert, NoQ, aaron.ballman.
Herald added a project: All.
tbaeder requested review of this revision.
Herald added a project: clang.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
As discussed in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/20777
