JDevlieghere added a comment. In D62216#1511092 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216#1511092>, @jingham wrote:
> Most other programs write their history files in ~. So we are being a little > odd in offering to put them in ~/.lldb, though I agree that is convenient. > > But if putting files in ~/.lldb ticked somebody off enough that they made a > .lldb directory that was read only, your create_directory would fail - since > it explicitly asks for x & w - and I don't think we should punish them with > no history... > If ~ is not writeable, then for now we should return an empty path and not > do history. This sounds contrived at best. Who would even expect that there would be a fallback for that? If somebody really did create a read-only `.lldb` directory, it sounds to me like they don't want history at all. > Note, however, for history files a better solution would be to allow a way to > specify the history location. Right now, if you run multiple lldb sessions > at the same time they fight over the history file, which isn't great. If > folks could set the history file they could assign different history files to > different sessions. That would also be a way to work around a read-only or > non-existent ~. But that is out of scope for this patch... Yup, that sounds like a good future direction. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62216 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
