mgorny added a comment.
In D131837#3732971 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131837#3732971>, @labath wrote:
> This sort of makes sense to me, but it's not clear to me how is this
> selection logic going to apply to packets other than stop-replies. All of the
> forked processes are going to share the same pty, so it's going to be
> literally impossible to distinguish the `O` packets, for instance. I'm
> wondering if it would make sense to split this interface into two, and have
> just one "preferred" recipient of `O` packets (and possibly others as well --
> as we have no plans for supporting them right now), and have a separate list
> of recipients who would do things with the stop replies?
Specifically about the `O` packets, I've been thinking that it doesn't really
make any difference which process receives them — after all, they will be
printed all the same, won't they?
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteClientBase.h:23
virtual ~ContinueDelegate();
- virtual void HandleAsyncStdout(llvm::StringRef out) = 0;
- virtual void HandleAsyncMisc(llvm::StringRef data) = 0;
- virtual void HandleStopReply() = 0;
+ virtual void HandleAsyncStdout(llvm::StringRef out, bool &handled) = 0;
+ virtual void HandleAsyncMisc(llvm::StringRef data, bool &handled) = 0;
----------------
labath wrote:
> Why not just make this a regular return value?
I've figured out an explicit variable makes its purpose clearer, rather than
arbitrary `return true/false`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131837/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D131837
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
