labath added a comment. In D77043#1980208 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77043#1980208>, @omjavaid wrote:
> For current implementation I dont think it will break any stubs because newly > introduced regnum is totally optional. If regnum is not provided then mocked > up register index is used and things will work as they were. I believe it is optional right now, but that can easily change in the future. That's why I am looking into whether it's possible to make this work without introducing the new field. If all code takes the same path, its much less likely something will break. > On a different note LLDB now supports sending over target xml packet and > there it has to send a register number along with register name and > everything else. Most of stubs like QEMU, OpenOCD, etc use target xml for > register description exchange and we may consider giving up qRegisterInfo in > favor of target xml in future. Lldb is able to use target.xml too. However, relying on as the sole source of register numbers would effectively make libxml a mandatory dependency. Maybe that would be possible, but that's a topic for a wider discussion, as some platforms (windows) don't have libxml easily available. Anyway, falling back to a different format is not what worries me that much -- I'm more concerned if we diverge on the content we send using those formats from what the other stubs send. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77043/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77043 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
