labath added a comment. For a "plugin", the scripted process is sure getting a lot of special handling in generic code. (I know this isn't being introduced here, but I wasn't involved in the previous review -- and I'm not actually sure I want to be involved here). I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in this case, but maybe we should not be calling it a plugin in that case? We already have a couple of precedents for putting implementations of "pluggable" classes into generic code -- ProcessTrace for instance. And just like in the case of ProcessTrace (where the real plugin is the thing which handles the trace file format), here the real plugin would the the scripting language backing the scripted process?
(Apart from that, this patch seems fine.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139945/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139945 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
