[lldb] Restructure test folders to match LLDB command hierarchy

Summary:
As discussed on lldb-dev, this patch moves some LLDB tests into a hierarchy that more closely
resembles the commands we use in the LLDB interpreter. This patch should only move tests
that use the command interpreter and shouldn't touch any tests that primarily test the SB API.

Reviewers: #lldb, jfb, JDevlieghere

Reviewed By: #lldb, JDevlieghere

Subscribers: dexonsmith, arphaman, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits

Tags: #lldb

Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67033

llvm-svn: 370605

4 files changed, 147 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/.categories b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/.categories
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..897e40a99dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/.categories
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+expression
diff --git a/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/Makefile b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a10791d5890
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+LEVEL = ../../make
+
+C_SOURCES := locking.c
+ENABLE_THREADS := YES
+
+include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.rules
diff --git a/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/TestExprDoesntBlock.py b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/TestExprDoesntBlock.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5b5042b63e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/TestExprDoesntBlock.py
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+"""
+Test that expr will time out and allow other threads to run if it blocks.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import print_function
+
+
+import lldb
+from lldbsuite.test.decorators import *
+from lldbsuite.test.lldbtest import *
+from lldbsuite.test import lldbutil
+
+
+class ExprDoesntDeadlockTestCase(TestBase):
+
+    mydir = TestBase.compute_mydir(__file__)
+
+    @expectedFailureAll(oslist=['freebsd'], bugnumber='llvm.org/pr17946')
+    @expectedFailureAll(
+        oslist=["windows"],
+        bugnumber="Windows doesn't have pthreads, test needs to be ported")
+    @add_test_categories(["basic_process"])
+    def test_with_run_command(self):
+        """Test that expr will time out and allow other threads to run if it blocks."""
+        self.build()
+        exe = self.getBuildArtifact("a.out")
+
+        # Create a target by the debugger.
+        target = self.dbg.CreateTarget(exe)
+        self.assertTrue(target, VALID_TARGET)
+
+        # Now create a breakpoint at source line before call_me_to_get_lock
+        # gets called.
+
+        main_file_spec = lldb.SBFileSpec("locking.c")
+        breakpoint = target.BreakpointCreateBySourceRegex(
+            'Break here', main_file_spec)
+        if self.TraceOn():
+            print("breakpoint:", breakpoint)
+        self.assertTrue(breakpoint and
+                        breakpoint.GetNumLocations() == 1,
+                        VALID_BREAKPOINT)
+
+        # Now launch the process, and do not stop at entry point.
+        process = target.LaunchSimple(
+            None, None, self.get_process_working_directory())
+        self.assertTrue(process, PROCESS_IS_VALID)
+
+        # Frame #0 should be on self.line1 and the break condition should hold.
+        from lldbsuite.test.lldbutil import get_stopped_thread
+        thread = get_stopped_thread(process, lldb.eStopReasonBreakpoint)
+        self.assertTrue(
+            thread.IsValid(),
+            "There should be a thread stopped due to breakpoint condition")
+
+        frame0 = thread.GetFrameAtIndex(0)
+
+        var = frame0.EvaluateExpression("call_me_to_get_lock()")
+        self.assertTrue(var.IsValid())
+        self.assertTrue(var.GetValueAsSigned(0) == 567)
diff --git a/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/locking.c b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/locking.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..fae9979611d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/commands/expression/no-deadlock/locking.c
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+#include <pthread.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+pthread_mutex_t contended_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
+
+pthread_mutex_t control_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
+pthread_cond_t  control_condition;
+
+pthread_mutex_t thread_started_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
+pthread_cond_t  thread_started_condition;
+
+// This function runs in a thread.  The locking dance is to make sure that 
+// by the time the main thread reaches the pthread_join below, this thread
+// has for sure acquired the contended_mutex.  So then the call_me_to_get_lock
+// function will block trying to get the mutex, and only succeed once it
+// signals this thread, then lets it run to wake up from the cond_wait and
+// release the mutex.
+
+void *
+lock_acquirer_1 (void *input)
+{
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&contended_mutex);
+  
+  // Grab this mutex, that will ensure that the main thread
+  // is in its cond_wait for it (since that's when it drops the mutex.
+
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&thread_started_mutex);
+  pthread_mutex_unlock(&thread_started_mutex);
+
+  // Now signal the main thread that it can continue, we have the contended lock
+  // so the call to call_me_to_get_lock won't make any progress till  this
+  // thread gets a chance to run.
+
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&control_mutex);
+
+  pthread_cond_signal (&thread_started_condition);
+
+  pthread_cond_wait (&control_condition, &control_mutex);
+
+  pthread_mutex_unlock (&contended_mutex);
+  return NULL;
+}
+
+int
+call_me_to_get_lock ()
+{
+  pthread_cond_signal (&control_condition);
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&contended_mutex);
+  return 567;
+}
+
+int main ()
+{
+  pthread_t thread_1;
+
+  pthread_cond_init (&control_condition, NULL);
+  pthread_cond_init (&thread_started_condition, NULL);
+
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&thread_started_mutex);
+
+  pthread_create (&thread_1, NULL, lock_acquirer_1, NULL);
+  
+  pthread_cond_wait (&thread_started_condition, &thread_started_mutex);
+
+  pthread_mutex_lock (&control_mutex);
+  pthread_mutex_unlock (&control_mutex);
+
+  // Break here.  At this point the other thread will have the contended_mutex,
+  // and be sitting in its cond_wait for the control condition.  So there is
+  // no way that our by-hand calling of call_me_to_get_lock will proceed
+  // without running the first thread at least somewhat.
+
+  call_me_to_get_lock();
+  pthread_join (thread_1, NULL);
+
+  return 0;
+
+}