jimingham wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. I believe I understand the purpose of the primary > listener. While I'm not sure that a "shared pointer" is the best way to > express the "someone must exist on the other end to pull the events" notion, > I'm not interested in revisiting that decision, so I'll remove that part of > the commit message.
Holding a shared pointer isn't really about making sure the client that provides the Listener is doing the right thing with it. Rather, the shared-pointer-ness coupled with the fact that you have to provide a Listener to make a Process mean that the Process event code never has to reason about what to do if it didn't have a Listener, which would be a pointless complication. I didn't try hard to come up with a way to enforce correct behavior on the client side because the fact that the debug session produced thereby wouldn't work seems a sufficient enforcement mechanism. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97300 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
