zturner added a comment.
Personally I think it would be clearer to just use `std::unique_lock<>`.
Already it's locking the mutex twice, once with a `lock_guard` and once when
creating a `BreakpointSiteList::Guard`. Which works I guess because it's a
recursive mutex, but it's still confusing. I would vote to just make a
`std::unique_lock` and then `return std::move(guard);`
It might be true that allowing the use of manual `lock` and `unlock` is unsafe,
but adding additional code also has some cost.
lldb-commits mailing list