Hello, From my understanding (please correct me if i am wrong) , currently the error codes returned by lldb-server are completely arbitrary. Now the SBError class in the public API interface of lldb does contain a string. I think in erroneous cases, lldb seems to set the String in the lldb Status class more often than the error code. I seriously doubt if there is a coherent structure in the error classes.
This whole error structure is borrowed from GDB, which is vague about error codes. Now there are two questions we need to answer -> 1) Do we want to have ability to send error strings in the error packets ? 2) If Yes then how ? On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Chris Quenelle <cq7...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’m just a new lurker here, so maybe this is obvious… > > Is the string part of the programmatic interface? Or just a comment? > Does the same numeric code always have the same string? > If the same numeric code can have different strings, then the string > represents a specialization of the error code? If clients depend on > the data that’s in the string, then they may not work correctly in > modes of operation where the string is not available from the server. > > If it’s intended to be part of the API then maybe a structured name/value > approach might be better? > > Or maybe it’s just supposed to be a form self-documentation so that > inspection > of the raw error codes is easier to diagnose? In that case maybe the > string > is always 1-to-1 with the error code? > > > On Jun 21, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Ravitheja Addepally via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > Currently the remote protocol in LLDB does not allow sending > Error Strings in response to remote packets, it only allows for "ENN" > format where N is a hex integer. In our current ongoing work, we would like > to have support for Sending Error Strings from lldb-server. I would like to > invite any opinions or suggestions in this matter ? > > > > A very simple proposal would be to just attach an error string maybe as > a Name:Value Pair ? like so -> > > > > EXX;"Error String" > > or > > EXX;M"Error String" > > > > I guess removing EXX would make it incompatible with gdb-server. Also > adding new packets to query errors might not be desired ? > > > > > > Regards, > > A Ravi Theja > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
