lawrence_danna added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBFile.cpp:115 + + R.Register<SBFile *()>(&dummy, "", "SBFile", "SBFile", "()"); + R.Register<SBFile *(int, const char *, bool)>(&dummy, "", "SBFile", "SBFile", ---------------- labath wrote: > I don't think these are right because there nothing here to connect the dummy > implementation (used for replay) with the invocation of the actual > constructor (happening when recording). (The strings are only used for > debugging purposes). > > This should be something like: `R.Register<SBFile > *()>(&construct<SBFile()>::doit, &dummy, ...)`. Note that the first argument > is the same blurb as the thing used in the LLDB_REGISTER_CONSTRUCTOR macro in > the constructor, and it's how the reproducer connects the two methods. Maybe > after fixing these (you'll need the register FileSP version of the > constructor too), you won't need the other changes? > > That said, I am surprised you were able to get even this far with this code. > Jonas, shouldn't there be some kind of an assertion if you call an > unregistered method/constructor during recording? Yea, and furthermore I don't need these dummy registrations at all. None of the SBFile constructors can be replayed in any meaningful way. I can just get rid of these and record them as LLDB_RECORD_DUMMY Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D68434/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D68434 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
