Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] use std::atomic to protect variables being accessed by multiple threads

2014-09-15 Thread Todd Fiala
Hey Jim, Just for clarification, is this a LGTM? Or are you wanting Shawn to spend more time looking at the bigger picture behind some of the locking? -Todd On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:37 PM, jing...@apple.com wrote: That looks okay. Thanks for looking at this. Seems to me that if you're

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] use std::atomic to protect variables being accessed by multiple threads

2014-09-15 Thread Todd Fiala
All good - I just wanted to double check since I jumped the gun on Jason last time I took it the wrong way :-) On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Jim Ingham jing...@apple.com wrote: Sorry if I wasn’t clear, this looks fine. Check it in. Jim On Sep 15, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Todd Fiala

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] use std::atomic to protect variables being accessed by multiple threads

2014-09-15 Thread Todd Fiala
Submitted here: ``` svn commit Sendinginclude/lldb/Core/Communication.h Sendinginclude/lldb/Core/ConnectionFileDescriptor.h Sendinginclude/lldb/Target/Process.h Sendingsource/Plugins/Process/FreeBSD/ProcessFreeBSD.cpp Sending

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] use std::atomic to protect variables being accessed by multiple threads

2014-09-12 Thread jingham
That looks okay. Thanks for looking at this. Seems to me that if you're only synchronization is locking access to some flag, then you're either doing something fairly weak (like the log example) or missing some real synchronization... So it's worth viewing the necessity of the change with

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] use std::atomic to protect variables being accessed by multiple threads

2014-09-10 Thread Shawn Best
There are several places where multiple threads are accessing the same variables simultaneously without any kind of protection. I propose using std::atomic to make it safer. I did a special build of lldb, using the google tool 'thread sanitizer' which identified many cases of multiple threads