================
@@ -761,12 +767,29 @@ void Debugger::InstanceInitialize() {
DebuggerSP Debugger::CreateInstance(lldb::LogOutputCallback log_callback,
void *baton) {
+#ifdef LLVM_BUILD_TELEMETRY
+ lldb_private::telemetry::SteadyTimePoint start_time =
+ std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
+#endif
DebuggerSP debugger_sp(new Debugger(log_callback, baton));
if (g_debugger_list_ptr && g_debugger_list_mutex_ptr) {
std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> guard(*g_debugger_list_mutex_ptr);
g_debugger_list_ptr->push_back(debugger_sp);
}
debugger_sp->InstanceInitialize();
+
+#ifdef LLVM_BUILD_TELEMETRY
+ if (auto *telemetry_manager = telemetry::TelemetryManager::getInstance()) {
+ if (telemetry_manager->getConfig()->EnableTelemetry) {
+ lldb_private::telemetry::DebuggerTelemetryInfo entry;
+ entry.start_time = start_time;
+ entry.end_time = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
+ entry.debugger = debugger_sp.get();
+ telemetry_manager->atDebuggerStartup(&entry);
+ }
+ }
+#endif
----------------
labath wrote:
I would actually argue that the telemetry library (before the cmake flag) was
very similar to the signposts setup (and all of the other cases where we have
an external dependency), with the library *itself* being the wrapper: it
exists, and can be used unconditionally, but unless some other component is
also available, then it amounts to a slightly sophisticated noop.
Sure, in this case the subject matter is a lot more sensitive, and there are
some differences in how it works. For example, that this "other component"
takes the form of a subclass, and that no support for an actual implementation
exists in this repo, but is rather meant to be added downstream. However, I
think the principle is the same.
The last point (no actual concrete implementation) also makes me feel like any
cmake flag would be mostly a placebo (as the only way to make this do something
is to do it downstream, and at that point, you can always disable/override any
protections we add here), but if that's what it takes, then that's fine. I
think anything would be better than `#ifdef`ing everything out, or building
another wrapper on top of that. I just don't know what kind of a form should
that take. For example would something like
```
TelemetryManager* getInstance() {
#ifdef TELEMETRY
return g_instance;
#else
return nullptr;
#endif
}
```
be sufficient? (if we put that in a header, we should also have a decent chance
of the compiler dead-stripping all the code which depends on this)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127696
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
