mib added a comment. In D117071#3238816 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071#3238816>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> Never thought I'd ask someone to merge two patches, but I think it might make > reviewing easier if you merge D117139 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117139> into > this patch. :-) Done ^^ > If I understand the patch correctly, you're getting the underlying `PyObject` > out of the `PythonDateObject` when passing it to the scripted thread > interface. I assume that works because the objects are retained by being > stored in a dict on the Python side (referring to `threads` in > ScriptedProcess, from D117068 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117068>). Why can't > we pass the PythonObject around instead? That seems simpler but more > importantly would guarantee the underlying object remains alive (even if it > weren't stored on the Python side) by keeping the ref-count incremented. Right. Sure, it would be easier to pass the PythonObject around but the Scripted(Thread)Interface tries to be as language-agnostic as possible, that's why we use `StructuredData::Generic` instead. I think it should remain this way. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117071 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
