labath added a comment.
I like the fact that we're moving the register methods into the respective
class files. Among other things, this should make it easier for the
instrumentation tool to insert register calls as well. However, I am not fond
of introducing a public SB API call for something that should really be a
private matter. One way to fix that would be to make the `Initialize` function
private and make the SBReproducer class a friend, but perhaps it would be even
better to not put this function into the public headers at all.
One way to achieve that would be to forward-declare some template function in
SBReproducerPrivate.h (or maybe even a completely new header). Something like
this ought to do the trick:
namespace lldb_private { namespace repro {
template<typename SB> void RegisterMethods(Registry &R);
}}
Then each cpp file could specialize this function to do what it needs to do:
namespace lldb_private { namespace repro {
template<> void RegisterMethods<SBWhatever>(Registry &R) {
LLDB_REGISTER_FOO(...);
...
}
}}
The reproducer initialization would become just a collection of
`RegisterMethod<SBFoo>()` calls, and no public API would be affected.
BTW: I believe the compiler errors are down to the fact that the REGISTER_FOO
macros assume they are called from the context of `Registry` class. If we go
down this path, then this will no longer be true, and the macros will need to
be adjusted slightly (e.g. to take the registry as an extra argument or
something). It technically is possible for SBFoo.cpp to implement a method
belonging to the Registry class (which would avoid needing to modify the
macro), but this would probably be just confusing.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59427/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59427
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
