labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks good to me. In D62216#1511101 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216#1511101>, @JDevlieghere wrote: > In D62216#1511092 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216#1511092>, @jingham wrote: > > > Most other programs write their history files in ~. So we are being a > > little odd in offering to put them in ~/.lldb, though I agree that is > > convenient. > > > > But if putting files in ~/.lldb ticked somebody off enough that they made a > > .lldb directory that was read only, your create_directory would fail - > > since it explicitly asks for x & w - and I don't think we should punish > > them with no history... > > If ~ is not writeable, then for now we should return an empty path and not > > do history. > > > This sounds contrived at best. Who would even expect that there would be a > fallback for that? If somebody really did create a read-only `.lldb` > directory, it sounds to me like they don't want history at all. My thoughts exactly. :) Also, when we say "no history", we mean "no persistent history", right? I'd expect one would still be able to use the history of commands typed in the current session in this scenario... CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
