-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[lldb] Avoid unnecessary regex check in dwim-print #114608
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
kastiglione
merged 1 commit into
llvm:main
from
kastiglione:lldb-Avoid-unnecessary-regex-check-in-dwim-print
Mar 8, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I realize this code was already there, but this isn't great. Can we store this at the debugger level, for example? I'd expect this to show up once per debugger, and again after having called SBDebugger::Terminate/Initialize.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we tie it to a module, we could use the mechanism introduced in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112801/files to automatically show it once per session.
You mean once per type and debugger, right?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think @augusto2112 and I discussed and agreed not to do once per type. We figured that might make the hint too noisy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am indifferent about per-debugger. I don't consider this note as being critical, as long as it's shown once in a while, I'm good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we already landed on only once per session I'm fine with that too.
You can also manually allocate a std::once and pass it to the Debugger-wide function. Or just do the call_once here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes the idea was for it not to show up too frequently, I'd be ok if it's once per debugger too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see how call_once would work here. This lambda might be called once, or it might be called multiple times (even indefinitely).