mgorny marked 3 inline comments as done.
mgorny added a comment.
Answered where answer was due, will update the rest once I finish retesting the
multiprocess patch.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/FreeBSD/NativeProcessFreeBSD.cpp:723
// Process all pending waitpid notifications.
- int status;
- ::pid_t wait_pid =
- llvm::sys::RetryAfterSignal(-1, waitpid, GetID(), &status, WNOHANG);
+ while (true) {
+ int status;
----------------
labath wrote:
> Is the loop still necessary?
I am not sure but I think there's no harm in keeping it, and it might save us
from some hard-to-debug corner conditions in the future.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/FreeBSD/NativeProcessFreeBSD.cpp:981-987
+ switch (event) {
+ case PL_FLAG_FORKED:
+ case PL_FLAG_FORKED | PL_FLAG_VFORKED:
+ break;
+ default:
+ assert(false && "unknown clone_info.event");
+ }
----------------
labath wrote:
> `assert(event&PL_FLAG_FORKED)` would be shorter, but I am not sure if we need
> even that, as this is already checked in the caller. You could just drop the
> entire `event` argument, if it is unused..
The distinction is necessary to know how to deal with software breakpoints, and
it will be used in the followup patch (D99864, when I extend it to non-Linux
targets). I think removing `event` at this point to reintroduce it would be a
wasted effort.
That said, I guess this is yet another case for `llvm_unreachable()`. Also, I
think it's worth keeping `assert()`s like this as they make sure we don't break
stuff accidentally when changing code on the caller's end.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98822/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98822
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
