Todd originally put that in, but only in the async case. It is just some dopey little delay in the hope of avoiding a race. The synchronous case is going to the trouble of waiting for a real stop to happen and get reported, that's going to take longer than this little delay.
Of course, it would be better to see how to avoid whatever this delay is papering over, but I don't have the time to open that can of worms right now... Jim > On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:17 AM, Zachary Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D8562#147401, @jingham wrote: > >> I prefer treating the synchronous & async cases separately. It seems a >> little easier to read to me, and we're more likely to have to modify one or >> the other branch, so keeping them separate is slightly preferable from that >> standpoint. >> >> Is that SyncIOHandler hack needed in the synchronous case? >> >> Jim > > > Not sure, you tell me? :) I guess probably not though, so I can remove it > (which also makes the argument for keeping the sync and async cases separate > a no-brainer) since at that point there's very little duplication left. Is > this good to go after removing the SyncIOHandler hack? > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D8562 > > EMAIL PREFERENCES > http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
