xiaobai marked an inline comment as done.
xiaobai added a comment.
In D62755#1527004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62755#1527004>, @labath wrote:
> However, I just want to add that from an lldb-server POV, even the fact that
> we pull in the `Process` class into it's dependency graph is a bug.
Agreed
> So, what I'd do (and what I have been doing so far, but mainly as a passtime
> effort) was to cut the dependencies way lower that this. Ideally, I wouldn't
> want to include anything from the `Target` library in lldb-server, possibly
> by moving some stuff that lldb-server does need to use (MemoryRegionInfo) out
> of it.
Yeah, I'd like to see this happen as well. My efforts are twofold: Remove
non-plugin libraries dependencies on plugin libraries, and move things out of
the core libraries into plugins (and possibly new non-plugin libraries, if it
makes sense). There are many dependency issues that I'm not yet aware of. I'm
hoping to uncover more as I keep decoupling.
================
Comment at: include/lldb/Target/CPPLanguageRuntime.h:47
+ static CPPLanguageRuntime *GetCPPLanguageRuntime(Process &process) {
+ return static_cast<CPPLanguageRuntime *>(
+ process.GetLanguageRuntime(lldb::eLanguageTypeC_plus_plus));
----------------
labath wrote:
> It might be nice to add some glue so we could write
> `llvm::cast_or_null<CPPLanguageRuntime>(...)` here. The main advantage of
> that being that we'd automatically get an assert firing if
> `GetLanguageRuntime` ever returns something which is *not* a
> CPPLanguageRuntime.
I had thought about doing that, but there's an assertion in GetLanguageRuntime
that achieves the same thing imo. I do think that we could move towards a
`llvm::cast_or_null` implementation though.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62755/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62755
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
