clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41745#970362, @owenpshaw wrote: > Updated patch with new function name suggested by @clayborg. Added unit test > and changed to llvm::function_ref as suggested by @labath. Looks great. > Based on Greg's comments in the other thread, I've kept the new function > separate, rather than use a flag in SendPacketAndWaitForResponse. Yeah, it doesn't seem like any other commands will us it, so this is best just so people don't think it is normal. > Is it worth creating a function to share the locking code that's common to > SendPacketAndWaitForResponse and > SendPacketAndReceiveResponseWithOutputSupport? I don't think so since it is so simple. > Alternatively, should the lock-related error logging be unique to distinguish > between the two functions? I am not sure it matters since this only affects the rCmd, and the packet reception stuff is still the same. https://reviews.llvm.org/D41745 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
