labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteClientBase.h:116-118
+ GDBRemoteCommunication &GetCommunication() {
+ return m_comm;
+ }
----------------
mgorny wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > Is the plan to make this private/protected at some point, or something like
> > that? Otherwise, I'm not really sure what's the benefit of this over the
> > regular inheritance.
> >
> > I like the idea of using composition instead of inheritance (I think we
> > could do something similar with GDBRemoteCommunication and Communication),
> > but right now this seems fairly messy, and the benefit is unclear.
> Ideally, yes. However, I don't think I'm going to pursue it that far, i.e.
> someone else will have to take up the effort. And yes, I honestly doubt
> anybody will.
>
> The main goal is make ground for D135031, i.e. communication via separate
> thread. What I've been aiming at is leaving `GetCommunication()` for stuff
> that's unlikely to break when invoked cross-thread (or unlikely to be invoked
> cross-thread), while abstracting away the part of the API that needs to be
> reimplemented to communicate via the comm thread.
Ok, maybe that's fine. Let's figure out what to do with the other patch first.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135029/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D135029
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
