[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D72748: [lldb/IOHandler] Change the way we manage IO handler
Jonas Devlieghere via Phabricator via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jan 20 11:22:16 PST 2020
JDevlieghere marked an inline comment as done.
JDevlieghere added a comment.
In D72748#1823945 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72748#1823945>, @labath wrote:
> I didn't actually try it but I am pretty sure this will deadlock with nested lldb command files (running `command source` from a file that is itself being sourced). Changing the mutex to a recursive_mutex would fix that, but I don't believe it would make this fully correct -- it would just make it harder to demonstrate that it's wrong. OTOH, that may be the best thing we can do in the current state of affairs.
> The thing I don't understand now is why do we even need this stack in the first place. It seems like this could be handled by just running a new iohandler "main loop" instead of pushing something. Take the "expr" command for example. In the single-line mode it evaluates the expression synchronously, but in a multi-line expression, it returns immediately after pushing it's own IOHandler (which then gathers the expression and calls back into the command to run it). I don't see why we couldn't achieve the same thing by "running" the iohandler directly, instead of pushing it to some stack and waiting for it to be executed at the top level. The same thing could be said for the "script" command and various other things which "hijack" the main (lldb) iohandler.
Isn't the problem that you can't be sure your IO handler pushes another one on top of the stack? I considered an alternative implementation, where the synchronous IO handlers has its own stack and everything that's pushed while it is executing ends up on that stack. It adds a lot of complexity and you still need to synchronize with the "main loop"
Comment at: lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/breakpoint/breakpoint_callback_command_source/TestBreakpointCallbackCommandSource.py:40-42
+ self.child.send("script print(foo)\n")
> There's a ptrace version of `self.expect` to automate these things for you. It probably won't work for the multiline "breakpoint command add" command, but the rest could be something like `self.expect("script print(foo)", substrs=["95126"])`
Cool, I didn't know, I'll refactor that before landing
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
More information about the lldb-commits