aadsm marked an inline comment as done. aadsm added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:2770 LLDB_LOG(log, "no auxv data retrieved: {0}", ec.message()); - return SendErrorResponse(ec.value()); + return llvm::make_error<PacketError>(ec.value()); } ---------------- labath wrote: > aadsm wrote: > > labath wrote: > > > I am wondering whether we actually need the `PacketError` class. Such a > > > class would be useful if we actually wanted to start providing meaningful > > > error codes to the other side (as we would give us tighter control over > > > the allocation of error codes). However, here you're just taking random > > > numbers and sticking them into the `PacketError` class, so I am not sure > > > that adds any value. > > > > > > So, what I'd do here is just delete the PacketError class, and just do a > > > `return llvm::errorCodeToError(ec)` here. I'd also delete the log message > > > as the error message will implicitly end up in the packet log via the > > > error message extension (if you implement my suggestion > > > `SendErrorResponse`). > > I thought it would be nice to have a little abstraction layer around the > > packet errors overall. My purpose with the PacketError is to make it more > > obvious in the code that the number given will be sent back as an error > > number. > > I didn't realize the numbers we were using were meaningless today though > > (now that I think of it this ec.value is really whatever GetAuxvData > > returns). I searched at the time and found a few different numbers being > > used: 9, 4, 10, etc. I guess these numbers are just lies then :D. > > > Yeah, the only way you can assign meaning to these numbers today is if you > open the source code and search for the occurrences of the given number. :) > That will be even easier if we switch to using strings. :) But we can't return strings on the protocol though, it will have to be a `E NN`. I'm going with your suggestions but how about this in a future patch: Have a base `PacketError(num, message)` and then subclass that one with the different errors we have like `NoProcessAvailablePacketError()` that would code their own error number and message (or maybe we just need to have static functions like PacketError::createNoProcessAvailableError()?). Then, on the client side we could add an `Optional<PacketError> GetResponseError()` to `StringExtractorGDBRemote` that would create the right packet error given the number, so we can print a descriptive error message on the lldb terminal. (maybe GDBResponseError instead of PacketError...) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62499/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62499 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits