[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Expose the Target API lock through the SB API (PR #131404)

[Adrian Vogelsgesang via lldb-commits]

================
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+%extend lldb::SBLock {
+#ifdef SWIGPYTHON
+    %pythoncode %{
+        def __enter__(self):
+            return self
+
+        def __exit__(self, exc_type, exc_value, traceback):
+            self.Unlock()
----------------
vogelsgesang wrote:

It's a bit unfortunate, that

```
lock = target.AcquireLock();

with lock:
   # we are correctly locked here

with lock:
   # we are no longer locked here :/
```

does not work as expected.

In Python, the convention seems to be that locks can be locked or unlocked, and entering a `with` scope` acquires the lock. We might want to model this after the Python's [Lock](https://docs.python.org/3/library/threading.html#lock-objects) or [RLock](std::unique_lock) objects, i.e. closer to a `std::unique_lock` than a `std::lock_guard`

WDYT?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131404