On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:38:42 +0100, Florian Weimer via lldb-dev wrote:
> Run it in a loop like this:
>
> $ while ./test-attach ; do date; done
>
> On Linux x86-64 (Fedora 29), with LLDB 7 (lldb-7.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64) and
> kernel 4.19.12 (kernel-4.19.12-301.fc29.x86_64), after 100 iterations or
> s
* Jan Kratochvil:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:38:42 +0100, Florian Weimer via lldb-dev wrote:
>> Run it in a loop like this:
>>
>> $ while ./test-attach ; do date; done
>>
>> On Linux x86-64 (Fedora 29), with LLDB 7 (lldb-7.0.0-1.fc29.x86_64) and
>> kernel 4.19.12 (kernel-4.19.12-301.fc29.x86_64),
I'd be curious to see if the PID of the process that is failed to attach to
is the same as one of the PIDs of a process that was previously attached to
(and if so, if it is the first such case where a PID is recycled).
On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 4:42 AM Florian Weimer via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llv
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:39 AM Frédéric Riss wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 2019, at 7:30 AM, Joel E. Denny wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 11:30 AM Frédéric Riss wrote:
> > -llvm-dev + lldb-dev for the lldv test failures.
> >
> >> On Jan 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Joel E. Denny
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
* Zachary Turner:
> I'd be curious to see if the PID of the process that is failed to
> attach to is the same as one of the PIDs of a process that was
> previously attached to (and if so, if it is the first such case where
> a PID is recycled).
I added logging of the PID, and got this (the failur
