[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93479: [lldb] Simplify the is_finalized logic in process and make it thread safe.

aharries-upmem added a comment. Hi all, Apologies for being the bearer of bad news, but I believe that this patch breaks our[1] (downstream) lldb, by introducing a deadlock when a process is killed by a parent debugging process. Specifically, I believe that this patch causes a process to fail

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93479: [lldb] Simplify the is_finalized logic in process and make it thread safe.

aharries-upmem added a comment. In D93479#2839076 , @jingham wrote: > I wonder if instead of doing: > > // Use our target to get a shared pointer to ourselves... > if (m_finalize_called && !PrivateStateThreadIsValid()) > BroadcastEvent(event_sp); >

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93479: [lldb] Simplify the is_finalized logic in process and make it thread safe.

aharries-upmem added a comment. In D93479#2840497 , @aharries-upmem wrote: > I'm also a little suspicious of (in `Process::Finalize`): > > if (m_finalizing.exchange(true)) > return; > > rather than > > m_finalize_called = true; I've also tried re

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93479: [lldb] Simplify the is_finalized logic in process and make it thread safe.

aharries-upmem added a comment. In D93479#2841049 , @jingham wrote: > Huh... I fear you are going to have to debug this further on your end. I > can't see anything else suspect in this patch. Agreed. Sadly I need to prioritise another task in the short

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D93479: [lldb] Simplify the is_finalized logic in process and make it thread safe.

aharries-upmem added a comment. > ! In D93479#2850445 , @jingham wrote: > Don't hesitate to reach out for questions, explanations, "what the heck"-s > once you get back to this. Thanks Jim, that's very kind of you! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo