That sounds right. Please do fix the function names. We can have another discussion about naming at some point, but we shouldn't do it piecemeal.
Jim > On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > Yea, I can see splitting the target specific stuff into a separate "target > aware" dump function and having the base one not require the exeuction > context and go in Utility. In the interest of not breaking anything it seems > reasonable to try to do that as a separate patch so we the functional and non > functional change portions can be separated from each other. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:51 AM Jim Ingham via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > jingham added a comment. > > Yes, that is a good solution. It's still a little awkward that > DataExtractors live in Utility and their dumper lives in Core. Especially as > almost all the functionality of the dumper could live in Utility. If you > were serious about using Utility separate from Core you would want to put the > non-target parts of DumpDataExtractor into Core and assert if those are > passed the unsupported flavors, and then have DumpDataExtractorTarget, with > the instruction and fancy float bits. But maybe that's work for another day. > > We name functions starting with a Capitol first letter, so these should be > "Dump..." not "dump...". But other than that, this seems good. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D30560 > > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
