labath wrote: > > The patch is still a bit larger than I'd like. I've tried to highlight a > > few things that could be split off into separate PRs, but I think the > > biggest question now (not really for you, but for lldb-dap maintainers) is > > whether this could be using the socket abstractions already present in lldb > > (instead of building your own). If the answer to that is "yes", then > > switching to those should probably be a separate patch as well. > > I can split this into smaller patches.
Thanks. > > As far as the socket abstraction, at the moment lldb-dap doesn't use much (if > anything) from lldb outside of the API folder. I saw the `lldb/Host/Socket.h` > files but they also are built on top of the `IOObject` and interact with the > `MainLoop` which would mean taking on a few new dependencies from the Host > folder. I am aware of that, but I don't think that situation is sustainable in the long run. When lldb-dap was first added, I believe it only supported talking over stdio, so it had like ~zero amount of socket code, and so this kind of purist approach did not hurt (much). However, its getting quite complex now, and I think copying/reimplementing every abstraction it needs is going to come back and bite us. FWIW, the MainLoop class is self-contained, and might actually be useful if you wanted to support things like listening on IPv4 and v6 sockets simultaneously. And IOObject is just a abstract base, so it also doesn't shouldn't pull in much. We're also making sure (it took a lot of effort to reach that point) that the Host library as a whole does not depend on the rest of lldb. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116392 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
