[NFC][Py Reformat] Reformat python files in lldb

This is an ongoing series of commits that are reformatting our Python
code. Reformatting is done with `black` (23.1.0).

If you end up having problem

[NFC][Py Reformat] Reformat python files in lldb

This is an ongoing series of commits that are reformatting our Python
code. Reformatting is done with `black` (23.1.0).

If you end up having problems merging this commit because you have made
changes to a python file, the best way to handle that is to run `git
checkout --ours <yourfile>` and then reformat it with black.

RFC: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-document-and-standardize-python-code-style

Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D151460

show more ...

[lldb/python] Fix dangling Event and CommandReturnObject references

Unlike the rest of our SB objects, SBEvent and SBCommandReturnObject
have the ability to hold non-owning pointers to their non-SB

[lldb/python] Fix dangling Event and CommandReturnObject references

Unlike the rest of our SB objects, SBEvent and SBCommandReturnObject
have the ability to hold non-owning pointers to their non-SB
counterparts. This makes it hard to ensure the SB objects do not become
dangling once their backing object goes away.

While we could make these two objects behave like others, that would
require plubming even more shared pointers through our internal code
(Event objects are mostly prepared for it, CommandReturnObject are not).
Doing so seems unnecessarily disruptive, given that (unlike for some of
the other objects) I don't see any good reason why would someone want to
hold onto these objects after the function terminates.

For that reason, this patch implements a different approach -- the SB
objects will still hold non-owning pointers, but they will be reset to
the empty/default state as soon as the function terminates. This python
code will not crash if the user decides to store these objects -- but
the objects themselves will be useless/empty.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D116162

show more ...

[lldb/python] Fix (some) dangling pointers in our glue code

This starts to fix the other half of the lifetime problems in this code
-- dangling references. SB objects created on the stack will go aw

[lldb/python] Fix (some) dangling pointers in our glue code

This starts to fix the other half of the lifetime problems in this code
-- dangling references. SB objects created on the stack will go away
when the function returns, which is a problem if the python code they
were meant for stashes a reference to them somewhere. Most of the time
this goes by unnoticed, as the code rarely has a reason to store these,
but in case it does, we shouldn't respond by crashing.

This patch fixes the management for a couple of SB objects (Debugger,
Frame, Thread). The SB objects are now created on the heap, and
their ownership is immediately passed on to SWIG, which will ensure they
are destroyed when the last python reference goes away. I will handle
the other objects in separate patches.

I include one test which demonstrates the lifetime issue for SBDebugger.
Strictly speaking, one should create a test case for each of these
objects and each of the contexts they are being used. That would require
figuring out how to persist (and later access) each of these objects.
Some of those may involve a lot of hoop-jumping (we can run python code
from within a frame-format string). I don't think that is
necessary/worth it since the new wrapper functions make it very hard to
get this wrong.

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115925

show more ...