DavidSpickett added a reviewer: DavidSpickett.
DavidSpickett added a comment.
I like removing a return by ref and being explicit about what info is wanted
where.
So say the stub reports the "watchpoints received" but not the number of slots.
Does lldb just send the watchpoint set packets and rely on the stub to error if
it can't handle it (presumably you get a less than helpful error)? As opposed
to if you had a number of slots lldb could track how many it had used and give
you a nice error instead.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h:1822-1825
+ /// One user specified watchpoint may require multiple hardware
+ /// watchpoints, e.g. a larger object, or an unaligned object.
+ /// A target stub may not allow the user to set that many distinct
+ /// watchpoints if one of these is true.
----------------
This is a bit muddled.
I guess your point is that number of watchpoints the user can set may be less
than the number that the hardware supports. And that this method returns the
latter not the former. So perhaps:
```
This number may be less than the number of watchpoints a user can specify. This
is because a single user watchpoint may require multiple watchpoint slots to
implement. Due to the size and/or alignment of objects.
```
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Target/Process.h:1830
+ /// if unknown.
+ virtual uint32_t GetWatchpointSlotCount() {
+ return LLDB_INVALID_WATCHPOINT_SLOTS;
----------------
I would wave my `optional` flag here but defining some error value is the way
of the land so I will keep it under wraps :)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143215/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D143215
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
