labath added a comment. I think that "piggy-backing" on the `qSupported` packet for communicating protocol fixes is a good idea. However, I agree with Greg, that it does not seem like it's needed for this case. Fixing the problem purely on the debugserver side seems preferable, as it avoids adding compatibility code to lldb. It's true that it's a one-off error reporting mechanism, but it's already there, so it seems better to just support what's already implemented then try to support two mechanisms.
For a long-term solution, I am wondering whether we need `qLaunchSuccess` at all? It seems like the packet is completely redundant in a world where we can return textual error messages to _any_ packet. What was the reason for introducing it in the first place? Could we just switch to using error replies to the `A` packet for communicating the launch errors (with some transition plan for supporting `qLaunchSuccess` for a while)? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D79614/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D79614 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
