seehearfeel marked an inline comment as done.
seehearfeel added a comment.
In D136578#3878476 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136578#3878476>, @xen0n wrote:
> Hi, I've edited the summary and patch title for you. It's generally not
> necessary to add //that// much "politeness" when most of it is obvious from
> context (e.g. the fact that you're new face here, that there's obviously no
> LoongArch support in LLDB, and most of the methods being stubs). It didn't
> help that much of the text was in Chinglish either.
>
> As for the changes, they look reasonable to me, but as I haven't tested it
> out myself yet (and unable to, due to it being stub-only), I'll not give the
> approval myself this time. Thanks for your contribution and welcome!
OK, thank you.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfoPOSIX_loongarch64.cpp:43
+uint32_t RegisterInfoPOSIX_loongarch64::GetRegisterCount() const {
+ return 0;
+}
----------------
tschuett wrote:
> Stupid question: why is the register count 0?
It is just a stub function here to build successfully, actually it should
return k_num_gpr_registers
after the following header file is added in the later patch.
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/lldb-loongarch-register-enums.h
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136578/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136578
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
