omjavaid marked 3 inline comments as done.
omjavaid added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterContextPOSIX_arm64.cpp:46
+ : lldb_private::RegisterContext(thread, 0) {
+ m_register_info_up = std::move(register_info);
----------------
labath wrote:
> move this to the initializer list
ACK.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfoPOSIX_arm64.cpp:85
+ gpr_w22, gpr_w23, gpr_w24, gpr_w25, gpr_w26, gpr_w27, gpr_w28,
+ LLDB_INVALID_REGNUM // register sets need to end with this flag
+};
----------------
labath wrote:
> I'd probably just delete this comment (or merge it with the leading comment
> above the array definition), and then let clang-format lay this out
> normally...
Let me check what clang-format emits.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Utility/RegisterInfoPOSIX_arm64.h:19
public:
+ enum { ARM64GPR = 0, ARM64FPR };
+
----------------
labath wrote:
> Why these names? I think [GF]PRegSet would be better for two reasons:
> - the same names with the same purpose already exist in
> `NativeRegisterContextNetBSD_x86_64.h`
> - it seems like a better way to differentiate from the [GF]PR structs below
> than adding a redundant ARM64 prefix.
Indeed ARM64 is redundant now that we have these enums in
RegisterInfosPOSIX_arm64 . I will fix this in updated revision.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80105/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80105
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
