mgorny added a comment. In D96548#2573954 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96548#2573954>, @omjavaid wrote:
> In D96548#2573245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96548#2573245>, @mgorny wrote: > >> In D96548#2572770 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96548#2572770>, @omjavaid wrote: >> >>> I am wondering Whats the need for version checks? you are excluding >>> hardware breakpoint mangement code from the build but then that lldb-server >>> executable may well run on FreeBSD version which actually supports HW >>> breakpoints. Isnt there a dynamic way of checking support for hardware >>> break/watch points. May be query hardware debug registers and if it fails >>> just disable hardware breakpoints for that thread. >> >> The code relies on `struct` members that are only present with this version. >> I'd like to avoid copying implementation details like that into the code. > > Only concern here is that someone might be cross-compiling lldb-server on an > older system but eventually using it on a target which supports HW > break/watchpoints. What chances do you think we have for such a scenario? if > this is rare then this should be ok. I don't think it's very likely. @emaste, any opinion on this? >>> Moreover, can we shrink class name >>> NativeRegisterContextBreakWatchpoint_arm64 to may be >>> NativeDebugRegisterContext_arm64. >> >> I generally leave naming decisions to @labath ;-). > > Lets see what @labath has to say... IMO Debug Register is a general term used > in other architecture specs for referring to hardware debug capabilities like > breakpoints watchpoints etc. I agree. For consistency with the x86 class, maybe `NativeRegisterContextDBReg_arm64`? I wonder if we should rename the x86 class too. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96548/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96548 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
