https://github.com/labath commented:
> One area that I couldn't decide is if the ValueObj should be constructed in > Platform or not. Because Thread calls out to platform I just decided to call > the existing method, but I wanted your feedback on this because it does feel > somewhat split purpose. It might make sense to move the code into platform > and have thread call platform to create the SP, the issue is that the value > object needs a target reference. I'm not sure about that myself. I think it would make sense, but it's hard to say without seeing how it would look like. I don't think it needs to be done here, but I would encourage you to give it a shot afterwards. Now for tests. The tests for the UnixSignals part are great, but I'm not sure if there's a test for the end-to-end flow. It possible this automatically code is tested by one of the existing core file. Could you check if anything breaks if you e.g. change `GetDescriptionFromSiginfo` to return an empty string? If it does, then it's probably fine. If not, could you check if one of our existing core files has the siginfo stuff we'd need to write a test for this? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140150 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
