mgorny added a comment. In D89874#2344561 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D89874#2344561>, @labath wrote:
> I like this, and I think this is in a pretty good shape as it stands. The > thing I'm not sure of is the naming of the class. I'd probably name it > something like NativeRegisterContext_x86 (and hope that it can include > non-watchpoint functionality in the future). As it stands now, this is not > really a mix-in but a full register context class and in theory one can > imagine that some target which only supports a single architecture will not > bother with the NativeRegisterContextLinux stuff, but inherit straight from > `NativeRegisterContext_x86`. (It's comment can allude to the fact that it is > indented to be mixed with subclasses implementing os-specific functionality, > which will also help explaining the virtual inheritance.) I don't have a strong opinion here. I went for the mixin approach since that was your suggest wrt register caching. I suppose in this case it doesn't matter much but it could make things easier (or harder) as we have more potentially disjoint functions and partially transitioned source tree. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89874 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
