fixathon added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-vscode/FifoFiles.cpp:53-54
Expected<json::Value> FifoFileIO::ReadJSON(std::chrono::milliseconds timeout) {
// We use a pointer for this future, because otherwise its normal destructor
// would wait for the getline to end, rendering the timeout useless.
Optional<std::string> line;
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> This comment seems to indicate we need to use a pointer. Seems like this
> should either be rewritten to not try to use a future with a timeout or left
> as is?
Good catch. Looks like the original code aims to intentionally orphan the
'future' object if it's blocked (possibly infinitely) in its destructor waiting
for the executing thread to rejoin. This could happen if the workload uses
blocking I/O calls like we have here.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130802/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D130802
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
