labath added a comment. In D70883#1771686 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70883#1771686>, @aadsm wrote:
> Fair enough, I haven't seen evidence of this (haven't searched for it) but I > imagine IDEs need to ignore this as well otherwise they just barf if they're > expecting `Content-Length` and a wild print appears. The notion of stdout of > SBDebugger is the SBCommandReturnObject which doesn't print right away (only > when the command finishes executing) and from my previous tests .flush() > doesn't help with this. I believe this is the reason why people opt to use > print instead in their custom commands. But I don't think it's a reasonable > assumption (or api contract) to tell people they can't use print or it breaks > lldb-vscode. > > I'm going to fix this in lldb-vscode itself to wrap all stdout in a proper > DAP console response. Interesting.. I was expecting this was already handled somehow within lldb -- we have a fair amount of code <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/1cc0ba4cbdc54200e1b3c65e83e51a5368a819ea/lldb/source/Plugins/ScriptInterpreter/Python/ScriptInterpreterPython.cpp#L770> which tries to install fake stdin/out handles when running a python script. I'd start with checking out why that piece of code isn't kicking in... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70883/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70883 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
