JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done. JDevlieghere added a comment.
In D72748#1823945 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72748#1823945>, @labath wrote: > I didn't actually try it but I am pretty sure this will deadlock with nested > lldb command files (running `command source` from a file that is itself being > sourced). Changing the mutex to a recursive_mutex would fix that, but I don't > believe it would make this fully correct -- it would just make it harder to > demonstrate that it's wrong. OTOH, that may be the best thing we can do in > the current state of affairs. > > The thing I don't understand now is why do we even need this stack in the > first place. It seems like this could be handled by just running a new > iohandler "main loop" instead of pushing something. Take the "expr" command > for example. In the single-line mode it evaluates the expression > synchronously, but in a multi-line expression, it returns immediately after > pushing it's own IOHandler (which then gathers the expression and calls back > into the command to run it). I don't see why we couldn't achieve the same > thing by "running" the iohandler directly, instead of pushing it to some > stack and waiting for it to be executed at the top level. The same thing > could be said for the "script" command and various other things which > "hijack" the main (lldb) iohandler. Isn't the problem that you can't be sure your IO handler pushes another one on top of the stack? I considered an alternative implementation, where the synchronous IO handlers has its own stack and everything that's pushed while it is executing ends up on that stack. It adds a lot of complexity and you still need to synchronize with the "main loop" ================ Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/breakpoint_callback_command_source/TestBreakpointCallbackCommandSource.py:40-42 + self.child.send("script print(foo)\n") + self.expect_prompt() + self.child.expect_exact("95126") ---------------- labath wrote: > There's a ptrace version of `self.expect` to automate these things for you. > It probably won't work for the multiline "breakpoint command add" command, > but the rest could be something like `self.expect("script print(foo)", > substrs=["95126"])` Cool, I didn't know, I'll refactor that before landing CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72748/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72748 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
