[lldb-dev] Process plugin implementation with multiple threads

[Zachary Turner]

Yea that's more or less what I'm planning to do.  Thanks!

On Fri Nov 14 2014 at 4:31:19 PM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:

> You could probably maintain these:
>
> ThreadList newWindowsThreads;
> ThreadList deadWindowsThreads;
>
> As just vectors of your handles:
>
> std::vector<HANDLE> newWindowsThreadHandles;
> std::vector<HANDLE> deadWindowsThreadHandles;
>
> Then in:
>
> bool
> ProcessWindows::UpdateThreadList (ThreadList &old_thread_list, ThreadList
> &new_thread_list)
>
> You can search the old_thread_list and see if any of these have handles
> that are in deadWindowsThreadHandles and if so don't copy them over into
> new_thread_list, and if they aren't do copy them over. Then you would
> create new windows threads (subclasses of lldb_private::Thread) for all
> items in newWindowsThreadHandles...
>
> There is no need to create any lldb_private::Thread subclasses objects
> until you have a stop that might use them for debugger purposes as the
> thread might be created and also die before you stop, so you would want to
> remove any items from newWindowsThreadHandles that are in
> deadWindowsThreadHandles or remove dead threads from
> newWindowsThreadHandles without adding them to deadWindowsThreadHandles if
> they already exist in newWindowsThreadHandles before a stop comes along...
>
> > On Nov 14, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri Nov 14 2014 at 4:13:17 PM <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 14, 2014, at 3:46 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's possible, but Windows gives us a handle to the thread which has
> all privileges associated with it (in other words we can use it for just
> about anything), so it's considered better to use the handle windows gives
> us. At the very least we'd want to queue up all the incoming event
> notifications that we get from this loop, and then use it to update the
> state when someone stops.
> >
> > You get one view of the thread if you catch the event but another if you
> enumerate them when stopped?  That's awkward.
> >
> > It's likely possible to get the same view of the thread, but there's no
> guarantee.  handles are funny things, and there's a huge amount of
> complexity and security checks that go on behind the scenes when you try to
> open a handle, so it's safer to just use the one that's been blessed by the
> OS.
> >
> > Thanks for the additional explanations
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20141115/8cc64a82/attachment.html>