saschwartz added a comment. Responded to comments - will tidy up the nits.
================ Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-platform.cpp:289 fprintf(stderr, "failed to create acceptor: %s", error.AsCString()); - exit(socket_error); + return -1; } ---------------- teemperor wrote: > clayborg wrote: > > Should we return error.GetError() if it is non zero? IIRC it will be the > > actual errno. And best to not return -1, just return 1. > > > > ``` > > uint32_t SBError::GetError() const; > > ``` > If we force the caller to convert errno to an exit code, then we could also > just return the `Status error` itself (and then the caller can just return > 0/1 depending on success or error)? That seems more clear than returning > `errno` from a function with main signature (which makes it look like it > would return an exit code). Sounds fine to me - I went with `-1` because that was the original value for `socket_error`, but don't think anything should be conditioning on that. I'm pretty ambivalent to the `Status error` vs an error code directly myself, mainly because I don't know LLVM well enough to know what the convention might be. Will `error.GetError` always be nonzero if `error.Fail()` is true? ================ Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-server.cpp:59 display_usage(progname); - exit(option_error); + exit(1); } ---------------- teemperor wrote: > `return 1;` Thanks, good catch. ================ Comment at: lldb/tools/lldb-server/lldb-server.cpp:67 + return main_gdbserver(argc, argv); break; + } ---------------- teemperor wrote: > That break and the ones below are now dead code. Hmm, I thought the compiler would complain without a break statement but let me try. Thanks for review. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108351/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108351 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits