Yes, using line endings as split points is somewhat arbitrary, anything that's a reasonable compromise between interruption responsiveness and low interrupt polling overhead would do. I feel that the lines are somewhat nicer since arbitrary splitting may lead to confusion and/or formatting ugliness.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Adrian McCarthy via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > amccarth accepted this revision. > amccarth added a comment. > > LGTM. > > But just a thought: Is it worth doing all the work to scan for line > endings for the interruption points? What if, instead, it just printed the > next _n_ characters on each iteration until the entire buffer has been > printed. Sure, sometimes an interruption will split a line, and sometimes > it won't. I'm not sure that's important for interactive usage. It would > mean less fiddly code, faster output (because you don't have to scan every > character), and a zillion short lines will print as fast as a smaller > number of longer lines that represents the same volume of text. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D37923 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
