On 5 September 2013 22:28, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5 September 2013 19:37, Kaylor, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Incidentally, one of the changes in r166732 looks wrong. The first change >>> in ThreadPlanStepInRange.cpp was this: >>> >>> + if (m_stop_others == lldb::eOnlyThisThread) >>> stop_others = false; >>> + else >>> + stop_others = true;
> That's the way it is supposed to work... It does look like > ThreadPlanStepInRange test is some kind of thinko. In practice, in this case > it is probably safe to run only one thread when doing the "step through" > since that generally involved running from a shared library stub to its > target. That could deadlock if the dynamic loader has to fix up the symbol, > and another thread is in the middle of doing that. But that doesn't seem to > be very common, or at least the code is clearly wrong but I haven't had any > reports of this causing deadlocks... It looks like this was never changed -- shall I commit the inverted case? _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
