xiaobai added a comment. In D63363#1546464 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63363#1546464>, @jfb wrote:
> Can you describe what the goal of your plugin architecture is? Maybe you need > an RFC by email before moving stuff around. > > I want to understand what you're going for because as they are today the > signals mostly work, and aren't really tested (because injecting these > conditions isn't trivial). Anything you change is likely to break some subtle > invariant which will only repro when your change is deployed at scale. My goal is to remove non-plugin libraries dependencies on plugins. Today, Target depends on the ProcessUtility plugin because of UnixSignals. If Signals were their own plugin that could be accessed through the PluginManager interface, that dependency would go away. As Pavel said, this feels somewhat over engineered and contrived, but it is the simplest path forward. I am willing to drop this patch and go for a different solution if there is a nicer solution agreed upon by the community, so an RFC sounds like a nice idea. :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D63363/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D63363 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
