jingham added a comment. This is a fine idea. However, it doesn't seem immediately obvious that a "memory history provider plugin" is a property of the executable, not lldb. In other instances we say we don't have an architecture plugin for your architecture, etc. So that ends up sounding more like something you have to add to lldb.
I'd make this more direct, like "This command requires that your executable run with some memory introspection support library. For example, compile the debug with address sanitizer." You could also be less cagy about the list of memory history introspection libraries since we seem to only support ASAN at present. We could just say "use asan" here so people don't waste time wondering what the others are. Then if we ever support another one we can revise this string. It should be natural at that point because once we support more than one introspection library, we'd probably have to give you a way to choose which among the ones that are available. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140102/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140102 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
