alvinhochun added a comment. In D128541#3621364 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128541#3621364>, @labath wrote:
> Well.. most OSes don't have this kind of functionality, so we don't really > have an exact match for this. I suppose the closest thing would be the way we > handle darwin OS logs, so you could try to see if reusing some of that > infrastructure makes sense (StructuredDataDarwinLog.cpp and surrounding code). Thanks, `StructuredData` looks interesting and it seems like a nice way to do this (albeit looking to be slightly overcomplicated). But I did a bit of digging and found D106324 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106324>, and I get the impression that it was planned to be removed eventually. Is it still a good idea to reference that? > One cheap way to accomplish this would be to pass this off as program > standard output (possibly prefixed by `ODS:` or something). Then it would > show up on the lldb console, could be accessed by SBProcess::GetSTDOUT, and > everything. It might not even be /too/ confusing, as we currently don't proxy > stdout this way (though that's also something that I'd like to see changed). This can work, but certainly not ideal. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128541/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128541 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
