mchoo7 wrote: > For you to claim support, we need to see that you are able to run > `check-lldb` and have reasonable results. Ideally there would be no failures, > and no major features skipped for reasons under LLDB's control. E.g. lack of > hardware breakpoint support is fine, as long as it's because FreeBSD has not > implemented and/or stabailised it yet. > > The definition of "major" is up to reviewers but you can also present your > own assessment of the results of course. > > If you cannot present good enough results, that does not mean this PR cannot > be accepted, but we will need to see more PRs to fix the problems before the > platform can be claimed to be "supported". We have a few experimentally > supported platforms, it's not unusual. > > Where the bar lies for this PR to be accepted on its own, that lies with the > other reviewers.
I was (and still am) confused of RegisterContextFreeBSD being used in other architectures but arm/arm64, so I created conversion logic between RegisterInfoPOSIX and FreeBSD's `reg.h`. I understand PR should be created at least once build succeeds, but I wasn't sure if using the conversion logic was correct approach so I wanted to hear others' feedback on this (And as expected, this seems to be a wrong approach). After finding a correct approach from feedback (presumably creating RegisterContextFreeBSD for riscv64), I'll close this PR and reopen it once testing is done if leaving this open during testing isn't allowed according to LLVM's policy. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/180549 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
