medismailben wrote: > The change itself looks good, but the out-of-line fix belongs in its own PR. > The comments in this PR also need to be cleaned up to be (1) less verbose and > (2) explain the generic principle rather than one particular application. > > Finally, please ensure that TSan agrees that this doesn't introduce any > races. While I think the general logic here is sound, I want to make sure > there were no latent races that happened to be synchronized by the API lock > that now become real. While TSan does have some scenarios where it reports > false positives (i.e. non-instrumented code, atomic fences, inline assembly) > there's nothing in this PR it shouldn't understand.
@JDevlieghere I ran the test suite under TSAN and this doesn't introduce newer failures. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/208242 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
