tammela added a comment. In D91508#2400222 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508#2400222>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In D91508#2396392 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508#2396392>, @tammela wrote: > >> @JDevlieghere >> >> When writing this patch I noticed that there is no mechanism in-place to >> remove the Python/Lua function when the breakpoint is removed or when the >> callback function is replaced. >> The class that sets the callback provides `ClearCallback()` but it never >> calls into the `ScriptInterpreter` to clean up. >> Although the real world impact is not that big, it's crucial for a small >> memory footprint. Any thoughts on this? > > I see, it looks like we just clean up the LLDB side but never tell the > runtimes about it. What exactly are we leaking in that case? Do you think > it's worth it to wire that up? For both interpreters, the function objects itself. I think it's worth it, specially for long running debugging sessions. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91508 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
