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

Reply via email to