================
@@ -761,7 +765,14 @@ void Debugger::InstanceInitialize() {
DebuggerSP Debugger::CreateInstance(lldb::LogOutputCallback log_callback,
void *baton) {
+ lldb_private::telemetry::ScopedDispatcher<
+ lldb_private::telemetry::DebuggerInfo>
+ helper([](lldb_private::telemetry::DebuggerInfo *entry) {
+ entry->lldb_version = lldb_private::GetVersion();
+ });
DebuggerSP debugger_sp(new Debugger(log_callback, baton));
+ helper.SetDebugger(debugger_sp.get());
----------------
labath wrote:
This is definitely better, but lambdas tend to add some boilerplate of their
own. They may be useful in some cases (if you need to set some field at the
very end) but I think that in many cases (this one included) we could just set
the field directly, so I want to float this idea: I think this would be shorter
if we had the dispatcher object expose the telemetry entry it is managing
directly:
```suggestion
telemetry::ScopedDispatcher<telemetry::DebuggerInfo> helper;
DebuggerSP debugger_sp(new Debugger(log_callback, baton));
if (telemetry::DebuggerInfo *info = helper.GetEntry()) {// returns NULL if
telemetry is disabled
info->debugger = debugger_sp.get();
info->lldb_version = lldb_private::GetVersion();
}
```
(and if we do need a callback, I don't see a reason why this couldn't coexist
with that)
Any thoughts @JDevlieghere ?
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
