clayborg added a comment. In D85705#2211073 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85705#2211073>, @vsk wrote:
> This looks very cool, thanks @clayborg! I think using JSON to describe the > trace data (what kind of trace is this, what's in it, etc.) sounds reasonable. > >> For "trace load", I get the plugin for the JSON file by matching it up with >> the "name" field in the JSON, but I don't store the "trace_sp" anywhere. We >> will need to store it with the target that we create, or for later commands >> add it to a target that is stopped when the trace data is loaded via the >> process interface (through lldb-server is the current thinking for this). > > Have you considered what might happen if there are multiple targets covered > by a single trace? Strawman proposal: would it make sense to register the > trace with a Debugger instance? This can be a list of traces if it makes > sense to support debugging more than one trace at a time. I hadn't thought of that but that does make sense! We can work this all into the JSON format. We should actually make a schema for the common parts of information that should be represented in the JSON and also allow each plug-in to supply a schema for the parts that is requires in the JSON. Some ideas that this information should contain: - array of process infos dictionaries - process info dictionary - pid - array of shared library dictionaries - shared library dictionary: - original path - UUID if available - MD5 of file if no UUID - load location - optional URL to download And LLDB will easily be able to load up N targets with everything setup correctly. >> "trace dump" does nothing for now, but this is what we can use to test that >> "trace load" worked and was able to create a target. > > It'd be great to have some test for this, even if all 'trace load' does at > this point is print an error about bad JSON input. I agree! If we like this format, Walter Erquinigo can commandeer this revision and fill in actual Intel PT guts and have this work. The idea is I am going to get the infrastructure in place and once we work this out, I will let Walter take over the patch and actually fill it in with real Intel PT stuff and test it fully. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/Options.td:206 + Required, Completion<"SourceFile">, + Desc<"A specifier in the form filename:line[:column] for setting file & line breakpoints.">; /* Don't add this option till it actually does something useful... ---------------- vsk wrote: > nit: seems like an accidental change here? yeah, my editor removes trailing spaces. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D85705/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D85705 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
