JDevlieghere planned changes to this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment.
In D117601#3253663 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117601#3253663>, @labath wrote: > I don't think that `atomic<bool>` is what you want here. In the case of a > race, the "loser" will immediately continue to use python as if it was > initialized, even though the winner has not finished the initialization. You > most likely need `call_once` semantics, blocking all threads until the > initialization completes. > > That said, I think think it would be better to do this initialization in the > `Initialize` static function. Out of general cleanliness, but with a > particular with a view towards the SIGINT patch. That way the initialization > functions happens in a predictable and single-threaded context (as you can > see, threads are hard), hopefully at a point where nobody will care that > we're mucking with the SIGINT handlers. Makes sense. I’ll update the patch tomorrow. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117601/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117601 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
