[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGc19280330474: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI (authored by mib). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

mib updated this revision to Diff 494704. mib edited the summary of this revision. mib added a comment. Address @JDevlieghere feedback: - Rename API to `GetScriptedImplementation` - Add test for non scripted process plugins CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236/new/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM if Jonas is also happy. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236 ___

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. I'd call it `GetScriptedImplementation()` to make it clear this isn't going to give you the underlying `lldb_private` class or anything like that. What happens in Python when you don't have a scripted implementation? Is the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

mib updated this revision to Diff 494695. mib added a comment. Address @jingham comment. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236 Files: lldb/bindings/interface/SBProcess.i lldb/bindings/python/python-typemaps.swig

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

jingham requested changes to this revision. jingham added inline comments. This revision now requires changes to proceed. Comment at: lldb/bindings/python/python-typemaps.swig:57 +%typemap(out) void* { + $result = nullptr; Won't this make every out void *

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

mib updated this revision to Diff 494485. mib marked an inline comment as done. mib added a comment. Add docstring. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143236 Files: lldb/bindings/interface/SBProcess.i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

mib added a comment. In D143236#4101429 , @bulbazord wrote: > This is an interesting idea. > > I suppose I find it a little strange that something from the SB API is > passing a void * back to the caller instead of something more well defined > (like

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

bulbazord added a comment. This is an interesting idea. I suppose I find it a little strange that something from the SB API is passing a void * back to the caller instead of something more well defined (like another SB class or some primitive) but I suppose that's not the worst thing in the

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D143236: [lldb] Add a way to get a scripted process implementation from the SBAPI

mib created this revision. mib added reviewers: bulbazord, JDevlieghere, jingham. mib added a project: LLDB. Herald added a project: All. mib requested review of this revision. Herald added a subscriber: lldb-commits. This patch introduces a new `GetImplementation` method to the SBProcess class