hubert.reinterpretcast added inline comments.

================
Comment at: 
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp:2079
+          if (log)
+            log->Printf("sorry: unimplemented for XCOFF");
+          return false;
----------------
davide wrote:
> hubert.reinterpretcast wrote:
> > JDevlieghere wrote:
> > > jasonliu wrote:
> > > > JDevlieghere wrote:
> > > > > jasonliu wrote:
> > > > > > apaprocki wrote:
> > > > > > > No need to be `sorry:` :) This should probably just say `error: 
> > > > > > > XCOFF is unimplemented` to be more direct in case anything is 
> > > > > > > expecting "error:" in the output.
> > > > > > Sure. Will address in next revision.
> > > > > Just bundle this with the WASM case, the error message is correct for 
> > > > > both.
> > > > I think they are different. 
> > > > The error message for WASM seems to suggest that it will never ever get 
> > > > supported on WASM. 
> > > > But it is not the case for XCOFF, we want to indicate that it is not 
> > > > implemented yet.  
> > > I don't think the error message suggests that at all, and it's definitely 
> > > not true. At this point neither XCOFF nor WASM is supported, and that's 
> > > exactly what the log message says.
> > > 
> > I agree that the error message for WASM does not indicate that the lack of 
> > support is inherent or intended to be permanent; however, it is not 
> > indicative either of an intent to implement the support. I am not sure what 
> > the intent is for WASM, but I do know that the intent for XCOFF is to 
> > eventually implement the support. I do not see how using an ambiguous 
> > message in this commit (when we know what the intent is) is superior to the 
> > alternative of having an unambiguous message.
> I think we should keep this consistent with the other target so my vote is 
> for grouping XCOFF with WASM. After all, if it's going to be implemented 
> soon, the message will go away :)
Well, I don't know about "soon"...
Using the WASM message for XCOFF is not actually wrong; so, I can be okay with 
it.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D58930



_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Reply via email to