================
@@ -743,9 +743,24 @@ DebuggerSP
Debugger::CreateInstance(lldb::LogOutputCallback log_callback,
}
void Debugger::HandleDestroyCallback() {
- if (m_destroy_callback) {
- m_destroy_callback(GetID(), m_destroy_callback_baton);
- m_destroy_callback = nullptr;
+ std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> guard(m_destroy_callback_mutex);
+ const lldb::user_id_t user_id = GetID();
+ // This loop handles the case where callbacks are added/removed by existing
+ // callbacks during the loop, as the following:
+ // - Added callbacks will always be invoked.
+ // - Removed callbacks will never be invoked. That is *unless* the loop
+ // happens to invoke the said callbacks first, before they get removed.
+ // In this case, the callbacks gets invoked, and the removal return false.
+ //
+ // In the removal case, because the order of the container (`unordered_map`)
+ // is random, it's wise to not depend on the order and instead implement
+ // logic inside the callbacks to decide if their work should be skipped.
+ while (m_destroy_callback_and_baton.size()) {
+ auto iter = m_destroy_callback_and_baton.begin();
+ const auto &callback = iter->second.first;
+ const auto &baton = iter->second.second;
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
Using `auto` for the iterator is fine, but it's not obvious from context what
the types are of `.first` and `.second`. The [LLVM Coding
Standards](https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#use-auto-type-deduction-to-make-code-more-readable)
have a paragraph on when to use (and no use) `auto`. A few more instances of
that below.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89868
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
