labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
LGTM.
The ifdefs for the getpid() code and stuff are unfortunate, but I am not sure
if using llvm libraries for that is a good idea. Right now we have the ability
to compile the tests for a different architecture than the one lldb is built
for. If we started using non-standard facilities in the tests, this would
become a lot more complicated.
================
Comment at: packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-server/main.cpp:188-192
+ g_print_mutex.lock();
printf("thread %d id: ", this_thread_index);
print_thread_id();
printf("\n");
+ g_print_mutex.unlock();
----------------
asmith wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > use std::scoped_lock instead of manual lock/unlock calls (throughout the
> > patch).
> Is cxx17 now officially okay to use?
>
Sorry, I meant std::lock_guard here (and I see that you have used that). c++17
is not ok do be used in real code. Tests can theoretically have different
(stricter, or more lax) requirements, but I don't see a reason to deviate from
the official policy here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60496/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60496
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
