labath wrote: > > Ok, so if I'm reading this right you're saying you saw no ETXTBSY errors > > with the current implementation --server flag. Is that correct ? > > Right. Initially I have marked #100670 as dependent on this. > > Ok, agreed. So, we can try to use O_CLOFORK. And simple solution is to call > execve() as fast as possible and wait some time in case of ETXTBSY (this PR).
Umm.. by "current" I meant the current implementation that's in the llvm repository, so I'm not sure if we're agreeing to anything (yet). O_CLOFORK doesn't exist (that's the really mythical part). I wish it did though... I don't think we can call execve appreciably faster than we already do. I'm still not sure if I am ok with the wait workaround, but I think it could wait until we settle some other things first. For one, I'd like to hear your opinion on my port mapping alternative. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100659 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
