labath added a comment.
I like this a lot more than the previous version. The thing I'd like to know
is, whether we can replace `m_additional_processes` with something like
`m_debugged_processes` (i.e., just have a single list of all processes we are
debugging. We could replace all occurrences of `m_debugged_process_up` with
`m_current_process`, which just points inside that list. Is there any reason
for the "privileged" position of the original process? The way I see it, most
of the operations would just work even if we treated them as equals. The only
thing which might not work is resuming (or TBE, reporting the stops) of the
subprocesses, but if we wanted to be safe, we could prevent that in some other
way (preventing the changing of process through Hc; returning "crippled"
process instances for subprocess, which return errors on resume operations;
...).
WDYT?
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:1036
+ std::unique_ptr<NativeProcessProtocol> &child_process) {
+ // Apparently the process has been dealt with by another delegate.
+ if (!child_process)
----------------
You no longer have to worry about that...
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
