https://github.com/jpienaar edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jpienaar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
>From c5ffbd84f8b68bae2112e8cec68803cefe571a72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacques Pienaar
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 05:23:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [lldb][plugin] Clear in same thread as set
Here we were i
https://github.com/labath approved this pull request.
Thanks.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
https://github.com/jpienaar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
Rate limit ยท GitHub
body {
background-color: #f6f8fa;
color: #24292e;
font-family: -apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,Segoe
UI,Helvetica,Arial,sans-
labath wrote:
> But if plain counter preferred, will switch to that.
That is the first idea that crossed my mind, I'm not saying its the best one.
I'm not really sure how would a condition variable help here (like, you still
need some kind of a counter to trigger the condition), but I'm open t
@@ -189,17 +189,23 @@ DWARFUnit::ScopedExtractDIEs
DWARFUnit::ExtractDIEsScoped() {
}
DWARFUnit::ScopedExtractDIEs::ScopedExtractDIEs(DWARFUnit &cu) : m_cu(&cu) {
- m_cu->m_die_array_scoped_mutex.lock_shared();
+ llvm::sys::ScopedLock lock(m_cu->m_die_array_scoped_mutex);
+
https://github.com/jpienaar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
>From c5ffbd84f8b68bae2112e8cec68803cefe571a72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacques Pienaar
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 05:23:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [lldb][plugin] Clear in same thread as set
Here we were i
jpienaar wrote:
I agree a condition variable would work here. I realized this later too (wanted
all destroyed at end), one could do that as follows too
// In ManualDWARFIndex
...
std::vector clear_cu_dies;
clear_cu_dies.reserve(units_to_index.size());
for (auto &unit : units_to_index
https://github.com/labath requested changes to this pull request.
This defeats the purpose of storing the sentinel object -- the goal was to
clear it only after performing all the indexing.
I think the ScopedExtractDIEs object needs to be implemented differently. It
uses the RWMutex as a count
https://github.com/jpienaar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
>From c5ffbd84f8b68bae2112e8cec68803cefe571a72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacques Pienaar
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 05:23:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [lldb][plugin] Clear in same thread as set
Here we were i
https://github.com/jpienaar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
>From c5ffbd84f8b68bae2112e8cec68803cefe571a72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jacques Pienaar
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 05:23:00 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [lldb][plugin] Clear in same thread as set
Here we were i
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb
Author: Jacques Pienaar (jpienaar)
Changes
Here we were initializing & locking a shared_mutex in a thread, while
releasing it in the parent which may/often turned out to be a different thread
(shared_mutex::unlock_shared is undefined behavior if c
https://github.com/jpienaar created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139252
Here we were initializing & locking a shared_mutex in a thread, while releasing
it in the parent which may/often turned out to be a different thread
(shared_mutex::unlock_shared is undefined behavior if called
13 matches
Mail list logo
