labath added a comment. In D85705#2243536 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D85705#2243536>, @wallace wrote:
> - I'm still using StructuredData for the parsing. There's a chance that once > we release this feature users will want support for other formats besides > JSON, so for now I prefer to ask for JSON input but parse in a > format-agnostic way. If eventually no one needs any other format, we can > switch to JSON-only parsing. That argument goes both ways. We could say that if anyone wants to add a non-json format, he can change the code to accept his preferred format. Overall, I am very sceptical of the StructuredData's ability to abstract diverse formats in a meaningful way. I doubt that a natural XML representation of this data would map to the same abstract format as this json and that it could be parsed by the same code -- simply because xml conventions are different, and xml has features that json doesn't (attributes, for one). And since this file is just a descriptor, and actual plugin-specific data is contained in other files, I don't see why it's format couldn't be fixed. ================ Comment at: lldb/test/API/commands/trace/intelpt-trace/trace.json:11 + }, + "triple": "x86_64-*-linux", + "processes": [ ---------------- What if one of the processes is 64-bit and the other 32? It sounds like this should be a property of a particular process. 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
