labath added a comment. In D95165#2515232 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95165#2515232>, @augusto2112 wrote:
> @labath, you were absolutely correct! It was simply a matter of saving and > restoring the terminal struct on the `terminalHasColors` function in the > `Process.inc` file (I really should've tried that before). I'm currently > recompiling and will re-run the tests locally, and will push the changes > after that. I do worry this could potentially impact macOS though (I don't > know if these low-level terminal functions work differently between > differently OSes), so how do we ensure this doesn't break anything there? We should pick reviewers which have some knowledge of this -- the original author of that code + whoever reviewed that patch is a good starting point. If this breaks anyone's use case after it gets reviewed&committed, that person will surely let us know (and then we can figure out what to do). However, I don't think this will be a particularly risky change. The more interesting question is whether there is any reasonable way of testing this.... > Also, since the patch will be completely different, should I open a new patch > or push to this one and just change the title/description accordingly? A new patch would probably be better in this case. However, it might be a good idea to add a reference to this discussion for context. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95165/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95165 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits