kusmour wrote: > Reading the description, it seems like the third option would be the right > one: > > ``` > 3. Improve the run lock. This is a synchronize issue where process was in the > middle of resuming while lldb-dap attempts to interrupt it. > ``` > > and this patch is working around that while and breaking existing behavior in > the process. What would it take to go with (3)?
I have tried a fix attempts but failed. I am exploring related code around the `GDBRemoteClientBase::Lock` rn. Before moving forward with this, I also want to mention that we should probs not accepting threads request when the process is not stopped (option 2). Even if this is fixed, all treads resumed, then interrupted again and get a thread list that will very likely to change might not be a good idea. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134339 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
