mgorny added a comment.
In D100191#2685039 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191#2685039>, @labath wrote:
> I like this a lot more than the previous version. The thing I'd like to know
> is, whether we can replace `m_additional_processes` with something like
> `m_debugged_processes` (i.e., just have a single list of all processes we are
> debugging. We could replace all occurrences of `m_debugged_process_up` with
> `m_current_process`, which just points inside that list. Is there any reason
> for the "privileged" position of the original process? The way I see it, most
> of the operations would just work even if we treated them as equals. The only
> thing which might not work is resuming (or TBE, reporting the stops) of the
> subprocesses, but if we wanted to be safe, we could prevent that in some
> other way (preventing the changing of process through Hc; returning
> "crippled" process instances for subprocess, which return errors on resume
> operations; ...).
>
> WDYT?
I've tried to limit changes to the minimum but sure, I can try doing that. I
suppose it's going to make following children cleaner.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:1036
+ std::unique_ptr<NativeProcessProtocol> &child_process) {
+ // Apparently the process has been dealt with by another delegate.
+ if (!child_process)
----------------
labath wrote:
> You no longer have to worry about that...
Don't I? The process plugin puts the new instance in an `std::unique_ptr`, and
passes that to all delegates. Only one delegate can take the pointer over.
While I don't think we really have a case for multiple delegates doing
`NewSubprocess()`, I suppose we should check rather than crash. Or maybe just
put an `assert` for it.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
