jankratochvil added a comment. In D75750#1991873 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1991873>, @labath wrote:
> In D75750#1988694 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1988694>, @jankratochvil > wrote: > > > The current plan discussed with @kwk is to create the new `SymbolServer` > > abstract superclass and some its inherited implementation and move there > > the appropriate parts of existing > > `lldb/source/Symbol/LocateSymbolFile.cpp`. Current `SymbolVendor` > > implementations would then iterate new `SymbolServer`s by the existing > > `LocateExecutableSymbolFile` function. That may be enough for a patch of > > its own. > > > I'll have to see the actual patch for a definitive opinion, but I have to say > that a priori I am sceptical of this direction. And yes, that should > definitely be a separate patch. This separate `SymbolServer` is following @clayborg's comment above <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1950734>. You proposed to merge `SymbolServer` with `SymbolVendor` in @labath's comment above <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1952130>. I found more clean the separate `SymbolServer` variant as there is orthogonal functionality of locating the files (on disk or from symbol server - `SymbolServer`) vs. extracting the unique ID from current file (extracting build-id - `SymbolVendor` functionality). So from the both proposed solutions I preferred the @clayborg's comment above <https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750#1950734>. I hope there is no misunderstanding which could lead to @kwk implementing a third solution nobody wants. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D75750 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
