DavidSpickett added a comment. So either way, if someone was running with no logs enabled we would have to ask them to enable them then re-run and get a new set of diagnostics (which is fine as is , not a criticism).
Option 1 they would need to add `-o "log enable gdb-remote packets -f <some arbitrary path>"`. Option 2 they would need to add `-o "log enable gdb-remote packets"`. So a few made up file names vs a performance decrease I'd take the former (without any measurement of the latter). Given that diagnostics are going to be written on crash is it any more "safe" to just copy a file than rely on a ring buffer in memory? I don't think it is, unless the crash itself was in logging itself and all bets are off then in any case. Another disadvantage to the ring buffer is a size limit, so you could lose early log data from a long session before you get to the crash. However you could work around that by sending each log to a file, once you had realised that the buffer didn't go far back enough (and we're asking people to re-run the reproducer in any case). Saving logs that are already written to a file seems logical and isn't much harder to guide people how to do, vs. the ring buffer. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D135631/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D135631 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
