Issue 4995046: locks required at function boundaries

Keyboard Shortcuts

	File
u :	up to issue
m :	publish + mail comments
M :	edit review message
j / k :	jump to file after / before current file
J / K :	jump to next file with a comment after / before current file
	Side-by-side diff
i :	toggle intra-line diffs
e :	expand all comments
c :	collapse all comments
s :	toggle showing all comments
n / p :	next / previous diff chunk or comment
N / P :	next / previous comment
<Up> / <Down> :	next / previous line
<Enter> :	respond to / edit current comment
d :	mark current comment as done

	Issue
u :	up to list of issues
m :	publish + mail comments
j / k :	jump to patch after / before current patch
o / <Enter> :	open current patch in side-by-side view
i :	open current patch in unified diff view

	Issue List
j / k :	jump to issue after / before current issue
o / <Enter> :	open current issue
# :	close issue

	Comment/message editing
<Ctrl> + s or <Ctrl> + Enter :	save comment
<Esc> :	cancel edit

Issue 4995046: locks required at function boundaries

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review

Created:
13 years, 4 months ago by supertri

Modified:
13 years, 4 months ago

Reviewers:
chandlerc

Visibility:
Public.

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 6

Created: 13 years, 4 months ago

Download [raw] [tar.bz2]

		Unified diffs	Side-by-side diffs	Delta from patch set	Stats (+53 lines, -4 lines)			Patch
	M	lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp	View		3 chunks	+43 lines, -4 lines	4 comments	Download
	M	test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-analysis.cpp	View		1 chunk	+10 lines, -0 lines	2 comments	Download

Messages

Total messages: 2

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages

chandlerc

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp File lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp#newcode645 lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:645: static SourceLocation getFirstStmtLoc(const CFGBlock *Block) { Why this change? ...

13 years, 4 months ago (2011-09-15 00:44:02 UTC) #1

supertri

13 years, 4 months ago (2011-09-15 17:46:25 UTC) #2

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp
File lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp#ne...
lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:645: static SourceLocation getFirstStmtLoc(const
CFGBlock *Block) {
On 2011/09/15 00:44:02, chandlerc wrote:
> Why this change? Specifically, why change the name of the function?

Changed back.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp#ne...
lib/Analysis/ThreadSafety.cpp:705: if (I != E && D->hasAttrs()) {
On 2011/09/15 00:44:02, chandlerc wrote:
> Rather than pulling I and E out of the for loop, just check .empty() here?
That
> would seem much nicer. I don't really like having non-loop variables called I
> and E....

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-...
File test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-analysis.cpp (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/4995046/diff/1/test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-...
test/SemaCXX/warn-thread-safety-analysis.cpp:664: void es_fun_10()
__attribute__((exclusive_locks_required(aa_mu)));
On 2011/09/15 00:44:02, chandlerc wrote:
> No errors or other tests? this seems rather lightly exercised...

This code suppresses erroneous errors, but does not produce any additional
errors. I would have written more, but am committing about 10 test cases from
annotalysis that use this feature shortly.

Expand All Messages | Collapse All Messages