JDevlieghere added a comment. In D58972#1418931 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58972#1418931>, @labath wrote:
> FileFormats wouldn't be generic enough to capture the gdb-remote or > debug-info-server protocol code. However, even calling gdb-remote protocol a > "format" is still a bit of a stretch. I think there is enough similarity > between gdb-remote and minidump code for them to be in the same module (both > convert some (and often the same) data structures into some (file or wire) > format), but they're also sufficiently different for them to live in > different places. So yeah, if we want the protocol code to live in a > different library (Protocols ?), then FileFormats is a better name here. I was going to propose `Protocols` for consideration but that doesn't really work for minidump. Thinking a little about this, `Formats`, although generic, is probably the best. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58972/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58972 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
