vsk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Symbol/Function.h:661
+ std::mutex
+ m_call_edges_lock; ///< Exclusive lock that controls read/write
+ /// access to m_call_edges and m_call_edges_resolved.
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> nit: When inline comments span multiple lines it's IMO less confusing to
> convert them to up-front comments.
> ```
> /// Exclusive lock that controls read/write
> /// access to m_call_edges and m_call_edges_resolved.
> std::mutex m_call_edges_lock;
> ```
>
> I also doubt that the ones in this file are formatted correctly, I think the
> continuation needs to also use `///<`.
Sounds good. I'll reformat all of the data member doxygen comments in this file
in a follow up.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Symbol/Function.cpp:293
llvm::ArrayRef<std::unique_ptr<CallEdge>> Function::GetCallEdges() {
+ std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_call_edges_lock);
+
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> Can this be called on the same thread and would we benefit from a
> recursive_mutex?
Function::GetCallEdges() cannot recursively call itself, so a recursive_mutex
isn't necessary. Actually if the mutex were taken recursively, that would allow
the m_call_edges vector to be clobbered by the n-1 GetCallEdges callers who
took the lock before the n-th caller.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83359/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83359
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
