================
Comment at: source/Target/Target.cpp:2605-2606
@@ -2604,4 +2610,1 @@
{
- if (!synchronous_execution)
- m_process_sp->RestoreProcessEvents ();
-
----------------
zturner wrote:
> ki.stfu wrote:
> > Can we use a mixed code (for sync and async execution) to avoid copy-paste?
> I'm not crazy about the copy/paste either, but I thought this separation made
> the logic easier to follow. Let's see what Jim or Greg says, I don't feel
> very strongly, so if there's a consensus one way or the other I'll just go
> with the consensus.
Ok, I don't mind but I'd prefer to keep as is.
================
Comment at: source/Target/Target.cpp:2627
@@ -2625,2 +2626,3 @@
}
+ m_process_sp->RestoreProcessEvents();
}
----------------
zturner wrote:
> ki.stfu wrote:
> > it's really needed?
> I'm still learning this section of the code, but if we hijack the events,
> surely we need to restore them?
Right, but in this case we do that on line #2688
================
Comment at: source/Target/Target.cpp:2688
@@ -2673,3 +2687,3 @@
}
m_process_sp->RestoreProcessEvents ();
}
----------------
here
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8562
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
