[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D32087: Modify GDBRemoteCommunication::ScopedTimeout to not ever decrease a timeout

Pavel Labath via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 18 03:44:27 PDT 2017


0 means 0 here. For the time being, we don't have a way to specify infinite
gdb timeout.

On 15 April 2017 at 15:45, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> Does 0 mean infinite here? If so are the newly introduced semantics here
> still correct?
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 3:34 AM Pavel Labath via Phabricator via
> lldb-commits <lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> labath accepted this revision.
>> labath added a comment.
>> This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
>>
>> looks good, thank you.
>>
>>
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D32087
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-commits mailing list
>> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20170418/e0f97ff0/attachment.html>


More information about the lldb-commits mailing list