jimingham wrote:
We don't have SB API's currently for the stop-hooks yet, so we're free to
invent them.
But my notion was something like this:
class ScriptedHookDefinition {
void SetScriptingLanguage(lldb::ScriptLanguage lang);
void SetScriptClassName(const char *script_class_name);
voi
clayborg wrote:
> It also seems architecturally wrong to try to guess and influence what
> BreakpointResolvers do behind their backs. After all, the resolver might be
> just some Python Code you know nothing about. How would you instrument that?
> If I set a regular expression name breakpoint,
jimingham wrote:
It also seems architecturally wrong to try to guess and influence what
BreakpointResolvers do behind their backs. After all, the resolver might be
just some Python Code you know nothing about. How would you instrument that?
If I set a regular expression name breakpoint, wil
jimingham wrote:
> > This seems like a generic module loading observer. I don't see anything JIT
> > specific about it. Not saying a generic module loading observer is not a
> > good idea. But calling it a JITLoader seems pretty confusing to me.
>
> true, in the current form. Check out the com
clayborg wrote:
> This seems like a generic module loading observer. I don't see anything JIT
> specific about it. Not saying a generic module loading observer is not a good
> idea. But calling it a JITLoader seems pretty confusing to me.
true, in the current form. Check out the comments in my
clayborg wrote:
> > This seems like a generic module loading observer. I don't see anything JIT
> > specific about it. Not saying a generic module loading observer is not a
> > good idea. But calling it a JITLoader seems pretty confusing to me.
>
> +1 on the name. The design seems very general
medismailben wrote:
> Hey @clayborg, this is pretty cool. I'm glad you were able to use and extend
> the ScriptedPythonInterface to implement this, hopefully it wasn't too
> complicated. LGTM!
I meant LGTM on the scripting side of things. I still thing we should address
Jim's comments:
> For
bulbazord wrote:
> This seems like a generic module loading observer. I don't see anything JIT
> specific about it. Not saying a generic module loading observer is not a good
> idea. But calling it a JITLoader seems pretty confusing to me.
+1 on the name. The design seems very general, so mayb
https://github.com/vogelsgesang edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142514
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
