labath abandoned this revision.
labath added a comment.
This has been abandoned some time ago.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
I am not sure this is the right fix. This fix would mean that any IOHandler
would always be interactive even if the user didn't want it to be. A better fix
would be to make a way
clayborg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#512346, @labath wrote:
> I think I have understood the situation a bit more now, so let me try to
> explain what is going on.
>
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511683, @clayborg wrote:
>
> > Is this something the user is typing in
Tbh I've no experience with ptys so I don't know if there is an equivalent
I do know that more than one process can share a single console. So for
example if you run a copy of lldb, you can have the ide and lldb share the
same console.
Not sure if this is similar to what you're doing though
On Th
labath added a subscriber: zturner.
labath added a comment.
I think I have understood the situation a bit more now, so let me try to
explain what is going on.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511683, @clayborg wrote:
> Is this something the user is typing in your IDE that you are forwarding t
clayborg added a comment.
Is this something the user is typing in your IDE that you are forwarding to
LLDB via pipes? Again, why are you using the command and not the API. There are
API for everything you can do and no IDE should be doing code like:
void MyDebugger::ClearAllBreakpoints()
{
m
joshimbriani added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511275, @clayborg wrote:
> Can you explain the scenarios where you are going to use LLDB with pipes?
Sure! Essentially we are duplicating some of the functionality of the command
line, specifically when commands need confirmation
joshimbriani added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511446, @clayborg wrote:
> I think we all got that part. The question is why are you interacting via
> text input/output and not using the C++ API?
Well we are using the C++ API to initiate the command but the command waits for
clayborg added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511433, @joshimbriani wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290#511275, @clayborg wrote:
>
> > Can you explain the scenarios where you are going to use LLDB with pipes?
>
>
> Sure! Essentially we are duplicating some of the functional
clayborg added a comment.
Can you explain the scenarios where you are going to use LLDB with pipes?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D23290
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
labath added a comment.
I would implement this logic slightly differently: Have a ternary setting,
let's call it `debugger.interactive`, whose values are `never, always, auto`,
with `auto` (the current behavior) being the default. I think that makes it the
behavior of the debugger more predicti
11 matches
Mail list logo
