Jlalond wrote: > The patch itself looks good with some nits, but I'm (still) on the fence > whether this a good idea. > > In the past, a similar question has come up in the context of logging and > whether we want to add SB APIs to make use of LLDB's internals. The argument > in favor is that LLDB is meant to be extensible and that those extension > points should be able to benefit from LLDB's infrastructure. The > counter-argument is that nothing can prevent users from reporting arbitrary > data and making it look like it originates from LLDB. > > I'm curious to hear other's opinion on the matter. If it wasn't the SB API I > think we could figure that out in the PR as we have more freedom to change > our mind in the future, but given the stability guarantees for the SB API, > this might be worth an RFC before we commit to something.
Just to throw my opinion into the debate; I view Progress.h in the same way as I view any printing to the terminal (or stdout). We already allow Python commands, and I believe formatters, to print to the user's console. So restricting progress because we don't want a python script to be masquerading as LLDB seems less of a concern for me for SBProgress. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/119052 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
