JDevlieghere added a comment. In D139945#3999351 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139945#3999351>, @labath wrote:
> For a "plugin", the scripted process is sure getting a lot of special > handling in generic code. (I know this isn't being introduced here, but I > wasn't involved in the previous review -- and I'm not actually sure I want to > be involved here). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in this case, > but maybe we should not be calling it a plugin in that case? We already have > a couple of precedents for putting implementations of "pluggable" classes > into generic code -- ProcessTrace for instance. And just like in the case of > ProcessTrace (where the real plugin is the thing which handles the trace file > format), here the real plugin would the the scripting language backing the > scripted process? > > (Apart from that, this patch seems fine.) Maybe one way around this is to have some generic metadata that gets passed to the plugin, that can be different per plugin? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139945/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139945 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
