labath wrote: > > The question here is who is using those files and why. These are all > > plugins, so they shouldn't be pulled in unless they are `Initialized`. > > RichManglingContext.cpp is not a plugin and it uses `m_cxx_method_parser = > new CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName(demangled);`, including casting > `get<CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName>(m_cxx_method_parser)`. We can move > `CPlusPlusLanguage::MethodName` from CPlusPlusLanguage plugin to core, but it > still depends on CPlusPlusNameParser.cpp
I was referring more to the other items on the list. I assumed, it seems incorrectly, that Alex's patch would fix the dependency in the mangler. It seems like that part still needs to be pluginized, somehow. > > > Another way to attack this would be to remove the > > SystemLifetimeManager->Debugger dependency. > > I tried it. `SystemLifetimeManager` calls `Debugger::Initialize(nullptr);` > and `Debugger::Terminate();`. `Debugger::Initialize()` creates a mutex and an > empty list of debuggers. But it seems the Debugger instance is created while > a remote process is running. I'm not sure lldb-server can work w/o Debugger. > It also contains a lot of I/O handling code and thread pools. Anyway the > class Debugger is used directly in many places. We can start making the class > Debugger an interface and move the implementation to the new class > DebuggerImpl or such. I'm actually very much opposed to that. lldb-server not need/use a Debugger, nor a thread pool nor any IO handling present in that file. I wouldn't want to create a Debugger "plugin" for the sake of lldb-server. It should be cut off above that. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132274 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
