Hi Zachary, I'm new to LLDB so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this sounds like a good idea to me. LLDB is likely to encounter more and more LLVM APIs using llvm::Error in the future, so renaming lldb_private::Error to reduce confusion seems sensible.
Replacing lldb_private::Error at some point in the future probably makes sense too. The author of lldb_private::Error seems to have had a similar idea: /// ...In the future we may wish to switch to a /// registration mechanism where new error types can be registered at /// runtime instead of a hard coded scheme. The challenge here will be interoperability with the python APIs, which look like they map the current lldb_private::Error into Python. That will take some thought, but I think it should be possible. For any LLDB devs who are interested in llvm::Error, the lightning talk that introduced it is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8fNK98WGw , and the API is covered in more detail in the LLVM programmer's manual: http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#recoverable-errors . Cheers, Lang. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > I have a patch locally that renames lldb_private::Error to > lldb_private::LLDBError. As you might expect, this is a pretty large patch > so I don't plan to put it up for review, but since it's kind of a > fundamental class I figured I should at least start a discussion. > > The primary motivation for this is to enable cleaner interop between > lldb's Error class and llvm::Error. Currently there is an ambiguity > between the two. Obviously they are scoped in different namespaces, but > it's still confusing when looking at code to see such similarly named > classes. > > There are a number of advantages to llvm::Error over lldb Error which I'm > happy to elaborate on if anyone needs some clarification (I've also cc'ed > lang on here, who wrote the original llvm Error implementation). > > Long term I would eventually like to deprecate lldb's Error class > entirely, and switch entirely to llvm::Error. An intermediate transition > phase would likely involve making something like LLDBWrapError which > interoperates with llvm::Error and wraps an lldb_private::LLDBError. > > For now though, I'm only proposing a very simple rename with minimal > invasiveness. > > Comments? >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
