JDevlieghere wrote: > I don't think this needs to be a setting as the goal here is to weed out > truly egregious report frequencies (O(thousands) per second). I think the > rest would be better handled at the receiving side.
👍 > I guess making a constant for that is fine, though the name is somewhat > unfortunate as this isn't really the default (the default is no rate > limiting). It sort of makes sense if you tilt your head the right way, but > it's not ideal that the tilting is required. How about > `kDefaultHighFrequencyReportTime` (it's a mouthful, but I guess we won't use > it often)? Works for me. > Two other random ideas: > > * maybe we could actually make this the default (for all progress reports)? > The risk is that there's some reports get lost (e.g. if we send three > reports, and the first two are finished very quickly, then the _last_ two > could be dropped, and the progress would show the first step as taking a long > time, even though it has actually finished already), but maybe we're fine > with that? > * if we go with the above, and given what I've said the first paragraph, > maybe this doesn't actually need to be settable, from anywhere? I considered this too and decided against it for the same reason. Misattributing where time is spend really undermines the value of the progress reports. For now I believe it's best to rely on our expertise to categorize progress reports that should be rate limited. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133506 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
