don't run recursive interpretation unless there is a chance of breaking #89
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #89 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 83.2% 83.33% +0.12%
==========================================
Files 7 7
Lines 399 402 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 332 335 +3
Misses 67 67
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @@ -37,10 +37,17 @@ function show_breakpoint(io::IO, bp::BreakpointRef) | |||
| println(io) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| const always_run_recursive_interpret = Ref(false) | |||
| no_chance_of_breaking() = isempty(JuliaInterpreter._breakpoints) && !JuliaInterpreter.break_on_error[] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason not to use JuliaInterpreter.breakpoints() here?
Might also make sense to check if the breakpoints are actually enabled:
function no_chance_of_breaking()
bps = JuliaInterpreter.breakpoints()
!JuliaInterpreter.break_on_error[] && (isempty(bps) || all(bp -> !bp[].isactive, bps))
end
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any reason not to use JuliaInterpreter.breakpoints() here?
It does a copy, which I don't really need. But of course, that copy doesnt matter and might as well use the official API.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might also make sense to check if the breakpoints are actually enabled:
Good idea.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unrelated, but that's not the third or so function that lives in Juno and Debugger. Maybe we should think about moving those upstream (or into DebuggerUtils.jl :P).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I think some code duplication is fine.
|
Shouldn't this logic be in JuliaInterpreter? That way Juno and Rebugger get it too. |
|
Yeah, that is very true. |
|
Will move. |
If someone is just stepping, we might as well use compiled mode like back in the days.
Does this makes sense to you @timholy?