tree a95a98bc5995f003b97d950f4a0082c37a0b221e
parent 74b7abf15452574808834c0a08dd2af6bada2648
author Jonas Devlieghere <jonas@devlieghere.com> 1743434381 -0700
committer GitHub <noreply@github.com> 1743434381 -0700
gpgsig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
 wsFcBAABCAAQBQJn6rKNCRC1aQ7uu5UhlAAAXq4QAEbXDmXzqOeK2o5UXP7uiPsk
 ZPOLXRukprIkIlHnVjklG3CwuEJk6cCY33XXwmMJO0ocdNmnexbupaa8GbiD56sE
 NNxawxWLxv9r7/mZx1SSujmsaPzhXLw/Y7bCCB+eIU6r7lnUo7JS6BJEXMivLrhD
 WvTKn/YX8X9CzfHetkeSRP1fv5JB8jmBbMyPiEwaJAR/0nsRHChNAYnWyyRAdVMp
 nvEFAUw0xtynVGerLwmZ5rJNp6pn7PUNCQxOvNgK8H5dssm/12udqrXOoqrZXOBo
 fdXBvg7wHAH80/+Oc4qGcT96bnzmKWUCiA+Yq94u/DLg0+FYyo5RFutuHUW8bwen
 nGHdwFIZ3qjJ2tOX6ZQv3oOtGG9WBCo4XPc0O7xNVdEDrHiDNVlWmueUKbFC+SQc
 jOUohMzzrnL7KRh54lt4UO09fr/sWgyPCT00h4RwXwdVGbsUVA6B2dbLpI4bzKYr
 tz13c7zkRkAUIEF904ED3e5527FgVDZykzbvD0N/QrznWELiKhpA2JpPzAhd2J4r
 UjNr7GuOP1b8s2arUJrmaVu1I1HGjSAeGFBW7sagEyxBXNUCQucxDh4L3jXonDTn
 PnLR9Bq+41PkMRXqw6n3i1lGxGs665T3TpY2TG59dy0uhYCM+XvBZw0CzQG3Kbj4
 +0VuPD58StgrUuY/RuTs
 =ZoO7
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

[lldb] Expose the Target API mutex through the SB API (#133295)

Expose u target API mutex through the SB API. This is motivated by
lldb-dap, which is built on top of the SB API and needs a way to execute
a series of SB API calls in an atomic manner (see #131242).

We can solve this problem by either introducing an additional layer of
locking at the DAP level or by exposing the existing locking at the SB
API level. This patch implements the second approach.

This was discussed in an RFC on Discourse [0]. The original
implementation exposed a move-only lock rather than a mutex [1] which
doesn't work well with SWIG 4.0 [2]. This implement the alternative
solution of exposing the mutex rather than the lock. The SBMutex
conforms to the BasicLockable requirement [3] (which is why the methods
are called `lock` and `unlock` rather than Lock and Unlock) so it can be
used as `std::lock_guard<lldb::SBMutex>` and
`std::unique_lock<lldb::SBMutex>`.

[0]: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-exposing-the-target-api-lock-through-the-sb-api/85215/6
[1]: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131404
[2]: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-bumping-the-minimum-swig-version-to-4-1-0/85377/9
[3]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/BasicLockable