mgorny added a comment. In D131160#3738805 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160#3738805>, @labath wrote:
> What's the reasoning behind `TriggerPendingCallbacks`? I was assuming that > the addition of a callback would cause it to run automatically... To be honest, I didn't think about it much. The original idea is that we can either have "non-important" callbacks that will be run at some point in the future, and "important" callbacks that should be run ASAP. However, I'm not really married to this idea, so I can make them triggered immediately if you prefer that. In D131160#3761163 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160#3761163>, @labath wrote: > In D131160#3751959 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160#3751959>, @mgorny wrote: > >> In that case, is there something more I should do about this patch or are >> you going to take over from here? > > It wasn't clear to me whether you intend to finish this patch (and I was > waiting on your response to this <https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160#3738805>). > That said, if you don't have any strong opinions there, then I can try to > finish this. Ah, sorry, missed that comment. I can change that logic if you prefer. Otherwise, I think the next thing that needs to be here is testing/fixing the Windows code, and I'd be grateful if you could do that. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131160 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
