labath added inline comments. ================ Comment at: source/Plugins/Platform/NetBSD/PlatformNetBSD.cpp:1 @@ +1,2 @@ +//===-- PlatformNetBSD.cpp -------------------------------------*- C++ -*-===// +// ---------------- krytarowski wrote: > labath wrote: > > krytarowski wrote: > > > labath wrote: > > > > This platform code looks like it was copy-pasted from PlatformFreeBSD. > > > > Do you anticipate making significant changes here? > > > > > > > > If not, it might be a good idea to share this code with FreeBSD in some > > > > way (in fact there is a comment here to make this share code with > > > > PlatformPOSIX). @emaste, what do you think about this? > > > Yes... however I have bad experiences (mostly in Gnome) when we drag > > > common code for rotted platforms like BSD4.4, BSD/OS and such in a single > > > source tree paralyzing sane platform support. > > So which one do you expect to rot first ? > > > > Joke aside, I agree that this could be an issue, but I think if we put some > > thought into the design, we can limit the possible downsides of this > > approach. The other alternative, where we copy everything is not ideal > > either: we have had cases in the past, where we made a change in linux > > code, and then we needed to apply the exact same change in the freebsd > > version. So there is definitely some tradeoff to consider here... > > > > In any case, I'm not trying to stop your changes because of this, but I > > think it's good to open this discussion in the early stages of the > > implementation... I don't know if you're aware but there are plans to move > > freebsd to the client-server model to follow linux, so if you make copies > > of the code, you may find out later that you may need to duplicate that > > work as well. > I'm strongly for this to design and put common BSD code (for modern BSDs) > into single library or module, limiting Free/Net specific pieces to their > appropriate modules. > > My requirement is to name the common parts as BSD, not FreeBSD. NetBSD isn't > a variation of FreeBSD (neither e.g. Bitrig, which may come next -- there is > already an active interest). > > I was thinking how to do it, with virtual functions, inheritance, #ifdef > magic... To make it clear, I don't use nor have FreeBSD to lonely > design/redesign neither touch its platform support, therefor I request for > active cooperation from the FreeBSD side. >I'm strongly for this to design and put common BSD code (for modern BSDs) into >single library or module, limiting Free/Net specific pieces to their >appropriate modules.
>My requirement is to name the common parts as BSD, not FreeBSD. NetBSD isn't a >variation of FreeBSD (neither e.g. Bitrig, which may come next -- there is >already an active interest). Sounds reasonable to me. > I was thinking how to do it, with virtual functions, inheritance, #ifdef > magic... LLDB is a cross-platform tool, we can already remotely debug linux from windows and mac machines, etc. It would be great if this would eventually work for BSD platforms as well. For this, we need both freebsd and netbsd code in a single client binary, so #ifdefs are ruled out (at least in client code). But I think inheritance is perfect for this particular case of PlatformNetBSD -- just move the code to PlatformBSD and have Free/NetBSD inherit from that. > To make it clear, I don't use nor have FreeBSD to lonely design/redesign > neither touch its platform support, therefor I request for active cooperation > from the FreeBSD side. Let's see what FreeBSD has to say to this. :) Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D13334 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
