labath added a comment. In D120284#3345994 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120284#3345994>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
>> I'm not entirely sure what's the best fix here. @JDevlieghere, what do you >> think? Can we just remove the output arguments from the LLDB_INSTRUMENT_VA >> invocation (given how logging their entry values is pretty useless)? > > Yup, the way I dealt with that for the reproducers was initialize them before > the macro, but no point in doing that purely for logging. Let's just remove > the macro. > > I'll need to think of a way to avoid `lldb-instr` putting it back. It will > ignore functions that start with a macro, so maybe we can add a NOOP macro > "LLDB_NO_INSTRUMENT" or something? I thought we could just replace `LLDB_INSTRUMENT_VA(event, progress_id, completed, total, is_debugger_specific);` with `LLDB_INSTRUMENT_VA(event);` Is that not sufficient to dissuade the tool? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120284/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120284 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
