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
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
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
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
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
