Summary:
When thread safety annotations are used without capability arguments,
they are assumed to apply to `this` instead. So we warn when either
`this` doesn't exist, or the class is not a capability type.
This is based on earlier work by Josh Gao that was committed in r310403,
but reverted in r310698 because it didn't properly work in template
classes. See also D36237.
The solution is not to go via the QualType of `this`, which is then a
template type, hence the attributes are not known because it could be
specialized. Instead we look directly at the class in which we are
contained.
Additionally I grouped two of the warnings together. There are two
issues here: the existence of `this`, which requires us to be a
non-static member function, and the appropriate annotation on the class
we are contained in. So we don't distinguish between not being in a
class and being static, because in both cases we don't have `this`.
Fixes PR38399.
Reviewers: aaron.ballman, delesley, jmgao, rtrieu
Reviewed By: delesley
Subscribers: cfe-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51901
llvm-svn: 342605
This also clarifies some terminology used by the diagnostic (methods -> Objective-C methods, fields -> non-static data members, etc).
Many of the tests needed to be updated in multiple places for the diagnostic wording tweaks. The first instance of the diagnostic for that attribute is fully specified and subsequent instances cut off the complete list (to make it easier if additional subjects are added in the future for the attribute).
llvm-svn: 319002
This reverts commit rL310403, which caused spurious warnings in libc++,
because it didn't properly handle templated scoped lockable types.
llvm-svn: 310698
Add warnings in cases where an implicit `this` argument is expected to
attributes because either `this` doesn't exist because the attribute is
on a free function, or because `this` is on a type that doesn't have a
corresponding capability/lockable/scoped_lockable attribute.
Reviewers: delesley, aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36237
llvm-svn: 310403
Delete the test that was broken by rL309725, and add it back in a
follow up commit. Also, improve the tests a bit.
Reviewers: delesley, aaron.ballman
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36237
llvm-svn: 310402
Note that for backwards compatibility, an unnamed capability will default to being a "mutex." This allows the deprecated lockable attribute to continue to function.
llvm-svn: 203012
The following attributes have been (silently) deprecated, with their replacements listed:
lockable => capability
exclusive_locks_required => requires_capability
shared_locks_required => requires_shared_capability
locks_excluded => requires_capability
There are no functional changes intended.
llvm-svn: 201585
Aaron Puchert