JDevlieghere marked 4 inline comments as done.
JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Utility/Log.h:231
llvm::StringRef function, const char *format,
- Args &&... args) {
+ Args &&...args) {
Format(file, function,
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
> These seem unrelated but not doing any harm.
This was unintentional, probably my editor removing trailing whitespace and
clang-format kicking in because the line got changed.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBDebugger.cpp:222
+static void DumpDiagnostics(void* cookie) {
+ Diagnostics::Instance().Dump(llvm::errs());
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
> What is `cookie` used for? (or rather, used elsewhere)
It's like the `baton` we sometimes pass around, just a way to pass additional
data to your signal handler.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Utility/Diagnostics.cpp:54
+bool Diagnostics::Dump(raw_ostream &stream) {
+ SmallString<128> diagnostics_dir;
+ std::error_code ec =
----------------
labath wrote:
> I am not sure how common this is, but I have recently seen (not in lldb, but
> another app) a bug, which essentially caused two threads to crash at once
> (one SEGV, one ABRT). In those situations, you probably don't want to
> crash-printing routines to race with each other. You can consider putting a
> (global) mutex in this function, or something like that. (unless the llvm
> function takes care of that already).
LLVM uses an atomic flag to make sure an exception handler is only run once.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134991/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D134991
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
