zturner added a comment. > If there were ever anything per-process that effected the ABI plugin's > behavior (for instance if it relied on a Process property) you could very > well use the wrong processes setting. Even worse, since the ABI's hold onto a > process through a weak pointer, if the initial process had gone away, you > would not be able to get to any process at all, and silently fall back on > some default behavior.
This sounds like something testable. Start a process, force an operation that goes through the ABI, kill the process, start a new one, do the same thing again. Presumably this crashes in current LLDB? Maybe this makes for a good test case? BTW, as a general rule of thumb, `std::make_shared<T>(constructor_args)` is preferred over `shared_ptr<T>(new T(constructor_args));` unless it's impossible (the only time being where a constructor is private or protected). The biggest reason is that it's every so slightly more efficient. This usually doesn't matter, but it's one of those "well, why not?" kinda things. Feel free to use the current syntax though, just pointing it out in case it strikes your fancy. Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D54460 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
