[Lldb-commits] [lldb] [lldb-dap] Retry unbuffered reads. (PR #165823)

[Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-commits]

JDevlieghere wrote:

Is there a middle ground that does async reads but still provides an abstraction over that that's not necessarily async, or is that just going to leave us in a "worst-of-both-worlds" situation? While I'm sure that using an async model would be a better fit for the kinds of tests we write for DAP, I'm also somewhat worried that it's not a common paradigm in LLDB. 

I think a contributing factor to the instability of the DAP tests is that we (LLDB developers) are not really used to writing tests that have this asynchronous nature. Finding a principled way to do this (with something like `asyncio`) may force that, or it may lead to the same kind of issues if we use it wrong. I'm not arguing against it, just trying to think out loud about how we can make DAP tests easy to write correctly and hard to write incorrectly.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165823