labath added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Host/common/NativeProcessProtocol.h:226 + NewSubprocess(NativeProcessProtocol *parent_process, + std::unique_ptr<NativeProcessProtocol> &child_process) = 0; }; ---------------- That way, the delegate _must_ do something with the child process. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:3202-3209 if (!m_current_process || (m_current_process->GetID() == LLDB_INVALID_PROCESS_ID)) { LLDB_LOGF( log, "GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS::%s failed, no process available", __FUNCTION__); return SendErrorResponse(0x15); ---------------- I don't think this makes sense anymore.... ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:3237 + __FUNCTION__, it->first, error.AsCString()); + return SendErrorResponse(0x01); + } ---------------- It might be better to carry on detaching even if one process fails, and then return the errors in batch (?) Something like: ``` Error err = Error::success(); for (p : processes) { if (Error e = p.second.Detach().ToError()) err = joinErrors(std::move(err), std::move(e)); } if (err) SendErrorResonse(std::move(err)); ``` ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp:3249 + if (!detached) + return SendErrorResponse(Status("PID %" PRIu64 " not traced", pid)); ---------------- Open question: Should we return an error for a plain `D` packet, if we don't have _any_ processes around? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100191 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits