On 27 July 2016 at 23:39, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
> Yes, I see.
>
> This change always checks public state running, so all the flips from run to
> stopped in the private state thread will have no effect on all the modes of
> running except expression evaluation.
>
> The change as is is better than w
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> On 27 July 2016 at 17:41, Jim Ingham wrote:
>> If you go to halt a thread whose private state is running, and by the time
>> you get to halting it the private state has gone from running to stopped
>> then the code doing the halt will de
On 27 July 2016 at 17:41, Jim Ingham wrote:
> If you go to halt a thread whose private state is running, and by the time
> you get to halting it the private state has gone from running to stopped then
> the code doing the halt will declare victory, since that's what it was trying
> to do. If i
If you go to halt a thread whose private state is running, and by the time you
get to halting it the private state has gone from running to stopped then the
code doing the halt will declare victory, since that's what it was trying to
do. If it was still running, then it will have to interrupt.
This fix is going to be flaky: Since the private state can flip back
and forth between running and stopped and there's no sychronization
between the private state thread and this code, you're going to get
unpredictable behavior depending on the exact moment you call
Destroy().
I assume the other t
Author: jingham
Date: Tue Jul 26 14:47:45 2016
New Revision: 276795
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=276795&view=rev
Log:
Check both private & public states to decide if you need to halt before killing.
We were just checking the public state, but that meant if you were hung in a
long
