JDevlieghere marked 7 inline comments as done.
JDevlieghere added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Platform.cpp:1834
if (error.Fail())
return nullptr;
----------------
labath wrote:
> JDevlieghere wrote:
> > jingham wrote:
> > > If you fail here you leave the process hijacked. That doesn't matter
> > > because if "ConnectRemote" fails, you aren't going to have much to listen
> > > to anyway. But it still looks odd. I'm surprised we don't have some
> > > RAII-dingus for process hijacking, but anyway, it's good practice to undo
> > > this in the error branch.
> > Yeah, that's exactly my reasoning. You can't use a RAII object here,
> > because the order of destruction is undefined, so you might end up calling
> > `RestoreProcessEvents` after the shared pointer has been destructed.
> > Anyway, I've added the call just for consistency.
> I'm not sure what you mean by the undefined destruction order. In c++ the
> destruction order is always the reverse of the construction order. The only
> "exception" to that that I am aware of is the destruction order for function
> call arguments. But even there the destruction order is still reverse
> construction order -- just the construction order itself is not (fully)
> defined.
I was thinking of static destructors, but that is also reverse construction
order, the construction order across TUs is just not defined.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/gdb_remote_client/TestProcessConnect.py:46
+
+class TestProcesConnect(GDBRemoteTestBase):
+ def test_gdb_remote_sync(self):
----------------
labath wrote:
> `s/s/ss` :P
My attempt to sneak in some Dutch spelling failed. (/jk)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83728/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D83728
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
