labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33426#766525, @bgianfo wrote:
> Address Pavel and Greg's feedback on Diff 100365. > > Pavel: I took your suggestions to make the test case more readable, > I really appreciate the guidance. I did have to tweak some of the > functionality to make the test case pass reliably, as there were > still some races possible. I also saw that SBThread.Resume() seems > to occasionally result in a StopReason of eStopReasonNon. So I worked > around that by only including threads int expected output that the Resume > resulted in making it to our breakpoint. I have verified the test is > consistently passes by executing it on repeat 100 times, Thanks. The fact that we are not able to rely on the operation of Resume in this case sounds like a bug. Obviously we can't condition the acceptance of this patch by fixing that issue, but we should at least track it. Can you create a bug on bugs.llvm.org, and reference it in your workaround. BTW, what's the platform you are testing this on? https://reviews.llvm.org/D33426 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
