saschwartz added a comment.
Responded to comments - will tidy up the nits.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-platform.cpp:289
fprintf(stderr, "failed to create acceptor: %s", error.AsCString());
- exit(socket_error);
+ return -1;
}
----------------
teemperor wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > Should we return error.GetError() if it is non zero? IIRC it will be the
> > actual errno. And best to not return -1, just return 1.
> >
> > ```
> > uint32_t SBError::GetError() const;
> > ```
> If we force the caller to convert errno to an exit code, then we could also
> just return the `Status error` itself (and then the caller can just return
> 0/1 depending on success or error)? That seems more clear than returning
> `errno` from a function with main signature (which makes it look like it
> would return an exit code).
Sounds fine to me - I went with `-1` because that was the original value for
`socket_error`, but don't think anything should be conditioning on that.
I'm pretty ambivalent to the `Status error` vs an error code directly myself,
mainly because I don't know LLVM well enough to know what the convention might
be. Will `error.GetError` always be nonzero if `error.Fail()` is true?
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-server.cpp:59
display_usage(progname);
- exit(option_error);
+ exit(1);
}
----------------
teemperor wrote:
> `return 1;`
Thanks, good catch.
================
Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-server.cpp:67
+ return main_gdbserver(argc, argv);
break;
+ }
----------------
teemperor wrote:
> That break and the ones below are now dead code.
Hmm, I thought the compiler would complain without a break statement but let me
try. Thanks for review.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108351/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108351
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
