================
@@ -99,6 +105,10 @@ class Progress {
private:
void ReportProgress();
static std::atomic<uint64_t> g_id;
+ static std::atomic<uint64_t> g_refcount;
+ /// Map that tracks each progress object and if we've seen its start and stop
+ /// events
+ static std::unordered_map<std::string, uint64_t> g_map;
----------------
chelcassanova wrote:
We spoke about this a little offline but at the moment although Progress
reports hold on to debugger instances, these instances are null by default and
most Progress reports don't give a debugger instance in their instantiation so
we wouldn't be able to have a debugger instance hold on to their own map of
ongoing progress reports.
@clayborg Having a progress report holding on to a debugger instance is a good
idea, but if we want to use a map to keep track of ongoing reports we need to
know what will own the map? Do we want the map to be owned by a debugger
instance or could the progress class hold on to its own map of ongoing reports?
In the case of the former we would then want to enforce that progress reports
have valid debugger instances and in the latter we could remove the `debugger`
field from the reports altogether.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81026
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
