Use the multi-lockable form of std::lock for operator=
For = operators for lists that have mutexes, we were either
just taking the locks sequentially or hand-rolling a trick
to try to avoid lock inversion. Use the std::lock mechanism
for this instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59957
llvm-svn: 357276
diff --git a/lldb/source/Target/ThreadList.cpp b/lldb/source/Target/ThreadList.cpp
index 86248da..afdfda3 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Target/ThreadList.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Target/ThreadList.cpp
@@ -37,8 +37,10 @@
if (this != &rhs) {
// Lock both mutexes to make sure neither side changes anyone on us while
// the assignment occurs
- std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> guard(GetMutex());
- std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> rhs_guard(rhs.GetMutex());
+ std::lock(GetMutex(), rhs.GetMutex());
+ std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> guard(GetMutex(), std::adopt_lock);
+ std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> rhs_guard(rhs.GetMutex(),
+ std::adopt_lock);
m_process = rhs.m_process;
m_stop_id = rhs.m_stop_id;