clayborg added a comment.
How is using m_mutex better than just using the std::atomic<bool>? Just
protecting the modification of the value with a mutex doesn't seem like it
would do much more than the atomic already did unless we are using the lock the
protect the value for longer that just the modification.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:4384
void Cancel() override {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_mutex);
SetIsDone(true);
----------------
Won't this cause a deadlock? You aren't using a recursive mutex here and you
are locking the "m_mutex" and then calling SetIsDone(true) which will try and
lock the mutex as well?
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:4441
Pipe m_pipe;
- std::atomic<bool> m_is_running{false};
+ std::mutex m_mutex;
+ bool m_is_running = false;
----------------
Does this need to be a recursive mutex? We have the same thread locking this
mutex multiple times it seems from the code?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120762/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120762
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
