zturner added a comment. Personally I think it would be clearer to just use `std::unique_lock<>`. Already it's locking the mutex twice, once with a `lock_guard` and once when creating a `BreakpointSiteList::Guard`. Which works I guess because it's a recursive mutex, but it's still confusing. I would vote to just make a `std::unique_lock` and then `return std::move(guard);`
It might be true that allowing the use of manual `lock` and `unlock` is unsafe, but adding additional code also has some cost. https://reviews.llvm.org/D39967 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
