[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb] Store the return ValueObject in the CommandReturnObject (PR #127566)

[via lldb-commits]

jimingham wrote:

> Two questions:
> 
> * what about commands (like frame/target variable) which can return more than variable. I guess I'm wondering if this should be a SBValueList instead?

That makes sense.

> * what about commands (I don't know if we have any) whose output consists of more than formatting a single value (which, I guess would be lost if the IDE decides to ignore the output). Are we fine with not supporting that? (we could say that if a command wants to print some extra output, it should use the error stream for that)

 In the longer term, we can also add an optional SBStructuredData for commands that return structured data, like `image lists` or `image lookup` so the UI can print these as tables or something else nice.  So if we end up having fancier commands that have both a ValueObject return plus extra annotation, we could add an SBValue type to what an SBStructured data can hold, and have it emit `before` and `after` entries for the extra text.

I think that would be better than trying to dump some of the output to stderr. 


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127566