jingham added a comment. In D63363#1545427 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63363#1545427>, @labath wrote:
> Although this is technically correct and pretty consistent with our other > "plugins", I can't help but feel that it's incredibly wasteful. Each of the > XXXSignals.cpp files is less than a 100 lines long (with the licence header > and all bolierplate) and it's unlikely to ever grow beyond that. And > essentially, all these files do is define a single enum. The reason they are > this long is because the UnixSignals class is already over-engineered (e.g. I > don't see why LinuxSignals needs to be a separate class, or why it needs to > repeat the descriptions/default stop values for each of the signals). Making > this a plugin would just add another chunk of boilerplate on top of that. > > I don't know about others, but I'd rather us move in a direction which > reduces the amount of boilerplate instead of adding more of it. In my ideal > world, each of these signal definitions would just be a bunch of (number, > name) pairs. This doesn't have/need to be a class or a plugin; a single > constexpr variable would suffice for that. Then we'd just cross-reference > this mapping with another one which gives the default stop values and > descriptions for each of the signals, and that's it. > > I know I am repeating myself, but each time I say this, it's because I find > another reason for it: I think we should start a new library which I would > roughly define as "utilities for describing and manipulating various > low-level aspects of processes, but which is agnostic of any actual process > class". The idea would be that we can shove here all classes which are shared > between lldb-server liblldb. UnixSignals would be one candidate for it. > AuxVector, MemoryRegionInfo are others. `Plugins/Process/Utility` (where most > of the signal classes live) would be a pretty good place for it already, were > it not for the "Plugins" part (it would be weird for non-plugin code to > depend on something called a "plugin"). However, maybe we could just create a > new top-level library called "ProcessUtil" (or whatever name we come up with) > and move the relevant stuff there. > > Anyway, TL;DR: I think this should be handled differently. However, if others > are fine with this approach, then feel free to ignore me. How would you bind a particular variant of UnixSignals to the process plugin that it goes along with in this scenario? 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
