jarin added a comment.
In D79308#2017348 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79308#2017348>, @labath wrote:
> The test setup here seems unnecessarily complex. Wouldn't an inferior like
> this work better?
>
> void thread1() {
> pseudo_barrier_wait(g_barrier); // See other tests how this works.
> g_foo = 0; // break_here
> }
> int main() {
> pseudo_barrier_init(g_barrier1, 2);
> std::thread t1(thread1);
> pseudo_barrier_wait(g_barrier);
> for (int i = 0; i<10000; ++i) g_bar = i; // empty loop to have something
> to step over
> t1.join();
> }
>
>
> That way you always know only one thread will hit a breakpoint, and and you
> can just pick the "other" thread as the target for stepping.
Yeah, I considered something like that, but then I thought it would be better
if the "other" thread only runs code that we completely control. In my patch,
the "other" thread is guaranteed to be in thread_func after we hit the
breakpoint. In your suggested inferior, it could be still in
pseudo_barrier_wait. If you feel stepping in external code is safe, I am happy
to rewrite the test to the simpler version.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79308/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79308
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
