[lldb] Disable delayed breakpoints on Windows

[felipepiovezan]

Tests started failing on a mysterious way there, potentially related to: #191222

[llvmorg-github-actions]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: Felipe de Azevedo Piovezan (felipepiovezan)

Changes

Tests started failing on a mysterious way there, potentially related to: #191222

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/195241.diff

3 Files Affected:

• (modified) lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h (+7)
• (modified) lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Windows/Common/ProcessWindows.h (+2)
• (modified) lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h b/lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h
index 045fa9ee2a05a..67a9a883cd36c 100644
--- a/lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h
+++ b/lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h
@@ -2310,6 +2310,13 @@ class Process : public std::enable_shared_from_this<Process>,
 
   bool IsBreakpointSitePhysicallyEnabled(const BreakpointSite &site);
 
+  /// Reports whether this process should delay physically enabling/disabling
+  /// breakpoints until the process is about to resume. The default honors the
+  /// user-facing `target.process.use-delayed-breakpoints` setting.
+  virtual bool ShouldUseDelayedBreakpoints() const {
+    return GetUseDelayedBreakpoints();
+  }
+
   // BreakpointLocations use RemoveConstituentFromBreakpointSite to remove
   // themselves from the constituent's list of this breakpoint sites.
   void RemoveConstituentFromBreakpointSite(lldb::user_id_t site_id,
diff --git a/lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Windows/Common/ProcessWindows.h b/lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Windows/Common/ProcessWindows.h
index c1478dd30c4d2..228619d0e3d5e 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Windows/Common/ProcessWindows.h
+++ b/lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Windows/Common/ProcessWindows.h
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ class ProcessWindows : public Process, public ProcessDebugger {
   Status EnableBreakpointSite(BreakpointSite *bp_site) override;
   Status DisableBreakpointSite(BreakpointSite *bp_site) override;
 
+  bool ShouldUseDelayedBreakpoints() const override { return false; }
+
   Status DoDetach(bool keep_stopped) override;
   Status DoLaunch(Module *exe_module, ProcessLaunchInfo &launch_info) override;
   Status DoAttachToProcessWithID(
diff --git a/lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp b/lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp
index cb9a13e5bc80c..114bbd7355f0c 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp
@@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ llvm::Error Process::ExecuteBreakpointSiteAction(BreakpointSite &site,
   if (IsBreakpointSiteEnabled(*site_sp) == (action == BreakpointAction::Enable))
     return llvm::Error::success();
 
-  if (GetUseDelayedBreakpoints()) {
+  if (ShouldUseDelayedBreakpoints()) {
     m_delayed_breakpoints.Enqueue(site_sp, action);
     return llvm::Error::success();
   }

[slydiman]

It seems it is not enough
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7892
Something caused an access violation.
The same tests failed
#192971 (comment)

[slydiman]

I'm building the debug version on Windows to localize the problem.

[felipepiovezan]

I'm building the debug version on Windows to localize the problem.

There were 3 PRs in the first failing build, right? Maybe it was one of the other two?

[felipepiovezan]

So they randomly passed on recent runs? https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7894

[slydiman]

Maybe it was one of the other two?

Two other are Darwin and Arm related.

https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7893 is already green. It contains no changes related to lldb.
And my local build is green too.
But https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7892 includes this patch and failed.
No idea.

[felipepiovezan]

Maybe it was one of the other two?

Two other are Darwin and Arm related.

https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7893 is already green. It contains no changes related to lldb. And my local build is green too. But https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/211/builds/7892 includes this patch and failed. No idea.

Do these bots perform incremental compilation / re-use build directories with the occasional clean build?