labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31172#806804, @jingham wrote:
> This is a good addition. However, it seems to me that since you only need an > ArchSpec to make one of these Architecture plugins, which plugin you get > seems fully determined by the Target, not the Process. I understand that the > only need for it at present is to do a Process-related task. But that task > actually takes a Thread as a parameter, so the Architecture plugin doesn't > need to know it's containing process to do its job. And it seems like it > diminishes the plugin's future utility to have it more limited in scope than > it needs to be. > > What do you think? I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing here. Is it to have the architecture plugin store a Target as a member variable? If that's the case, then I'd say let's wait until a need for that arises. I am not fundamentally against the idea, but I don't see a reason to add it while we don't have a need for it. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31172 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
