jingham added a comment.
There aren't many more platforms (OpenVMS?) that are likely to show up and need
support for lldb, so maybe this is making too much of the matter. But having
there be a well defined set of places where you need to look when porting lldb
to a new host platform seems a useful design to me. The fact that we weren't
strict enough and allowed Host platform dependencies to creep in where they
don't belong doesn't argue we should just abandon trying to keep the places
where a port sockets into lldb regular.
It's fine to have a staging area ("WillBeHost"?) to help pull out the classes
that it is simple to pull out of host. But I'd rather not glom them all into
Utility, which is already becoming a little incoherent.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58654/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58654
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
