hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp:2079
+ if (log)
+ log->Printf("sorry: unimplemented for XCOFF");
+ return false;
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> jasonliu wrote:
> > JDevlieghere wrote:
> > > jasonliu wrote:
> > > > apaprocki wrote:
> > > > > No need to be `sorry:` :) This should probably just say `error: XCOFF
> > > > > is unimplemented` to be more direct in case anything is expecting
> > > > > "error:" in the output.
> > > > Sure. Will address in next revision.
> > > Just bundle this with the WASM case, the error message is correct for
> > > both.
> > I think they are different.
> > The error message for WASM seems to suggest that it will never ever get
> > supported on WASM.
> > But it is not the case for XCOFF, we want to indicate that it is not
> > implemented yet.
> I don't think the error message suggests that at all, and it's definitely not
> true. At this point neither XCOFF nor WASM is supported, and that's exactly
> what the log message says.
>
I agree that the error message for WASM does not indicate that the lack of
support is inherent or intended to be permanent; however, it is not indicative
either of an intent to implement the support. I am not sure what the intent is
for WASM, but I do know that the intent for XCOFF is to eventually implement
the support. I do not see how using an ambiguous message in this commit (when
we know what the intent is) is superior to the alternative of having an
unambiguous message.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
