mgorny added a comment. In D132578#3770124 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132578#3770124>, @labath wrote:
> Seems reasonable. Just be aware that the packet RTT is very important for > some, so we will either make sure that the extra thread is not used in the > base case (no processes running), or somehow ensure that the extra thread > does not introduce delays. I'll bear that in mind. Worst case, the wrapper class can take care of conditionally enabling the extra thread and falling back to invoking comms directly. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132578/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132578 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
