This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst
471	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

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B135931: Diff 389603.Nov 24 2021, 2:06 PM

aaronpuchert added a subscriber: aaronpuchert.Nov 24 2021, 2:46 PM

aaronpuchert added inline comments.

clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst
471	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.

Fix description
Remove three

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B136030: Diff 389737.Nov 25 2021, 5:15 AM

LGTM!

clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst
471	TIL what `hendiadys` means. I think the currently proposed wording is reasonable (it's not just about syntax, as @aaronpuchert says, it's also about semantic checks). Really, this groups is about diagnostics that relate to incorrect use of the attribute itself, not the analysis supported by the attribute and "semantic checks" works for that).

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Nov 30 2021, 11:20 AM

Closed by commit rGf5ad6fa279cc: [clang][docs] Inclusive language: remove use of sanity check in option… (authored by ZarkoCA). · Explain WhyNov 30 2021, 12:07 PM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

ZarkoCA added a commit: rGf5ad6fa279cc: [clang][docs] Inclusive language: remove use of sanity check in option….

Revision Contents

Path

Size

clang/

docs/

ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst

4 lines

Diff 390779

clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst

	Show First 20 Lines • Show All 460 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines
	------------------------------			------------------------------

	Use of these attributes has been deprecated.			Use of these attributes has been deprecated.


	Warning flags			Warning flags
	-------------			-------------

	* ``-Wthread-safety``: Umbrella flag which turns on the following three:			* ``-Wthread-safety``: Umbrella flag which turns on the following:

	+ ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Sanity checks on attribute syntax.			+ ``-Wthread-safety-attributes``: Semantic checks for thread safety attributes.
				QuuxplusoneUnsubmitted Not Done Reply Inline Actions 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 Quuxplusone: I'd just say "Rejects invalid attribute syntax." But also - surely this is totally obvious…
				aaronpuchertUnsubmitted Not Done Reply Inline Actions 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. aaronpuchert: It's more about semantics than syntax, i.e. something like “this attribute doesn't make sense…
				aaron.ballmanUnsubmitted Not Done Reply Inline Actions TIL what `hendiadys` means. I think the currently proposed wording is reasonable (it's not just about syntax, as @aaronpuchert says, it's also about semantic checks). Really, this groups is about diagnostics that relate to incorrect use of the attribute itself, not the analysis supported by the attribute and "semantic checks" works for that). aaron.ballman: TIL what `hendiadys` means. I think the currently proposed wording is reasonable (it's not…
	+ ``-Wthread-safety-analysis``: The core analysis.			+ ``-Wthread-safety-analysis``: The core analysis.
	+ ``-Wthread-safety-precise``: Requires that mutex expressions match precisely.			+ ``-Wthread-safety-precise``: Requires that mutex expressions match precisely.
	This warning can be disabled for code which has a lot of aliases.			This warning can be disabled for code which has a lot of aliases.
	+ ``-Wthread-safety-reference``: Checks when guarded members are passed by reference.			+ ``-Wthread-safety-reference``: Checks when guarded members are passed by reference.


	:ref:`negative` are an experimental feature, which are enabled with:			:ref:`negative` are an experimental feature, which are enabled with:

	▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 564 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines

This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

[clang][docs] Inclusive language: remove use of sanity check in option descriptionClosedPublic

Details

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

Revision Contents

Diff 390779

clang/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.rst

[clang][docs] Inclusive language: remove use of sanity check in option description
ClosedPublic