labath added a comment. In D64599#1581598 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64599#1581598>, @jingham wrote:
> My model for this was that there was a CPPLanguageRuntime.cpp that contains > everything you can implement about the CPP runtime that is independent of any > particular implementation of the CPP language runtime, and then a plugin > instance (in this case the ItaniumABILanguageRuntime) that contains all the > bits that are specific to a particular implementation. Then putting the > CPPLanguageRuntime.cpp in Target lets you know that this has to only contain > the generic parts of the runtime behavior. That still seems to me a useful > distinction. I think that's fine, but it does not conflict the idea of the generic parts of a cpp language runtime being a plugin also. This way the generic parts of lldb would be truly language agnostic. Then if anything wants to work with a c++ runtime, but it does not care which one, it can use CPPLanguageRuntime. And if you need a very specific runtime, you go for the Itanium thingy. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64599/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64599 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
