[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL362164: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough (authored by xiaobai, committed by ). Herald added a project: LLVM. Herald added a subscriber: llvm-commits. Repository: r

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham accepted this revision. jingham added a comment. LGTM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai added a comment. @jingham @JDevlieghere Mind giving this a quick look? I modified it to use the new method I added earlier and wanted to make sure there were no outstanding issues here. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai updated this revision to Diff 202013. xiaobai added a comment. Update to reflect the recently added method Process::GetLanguageRuntimes CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61921 Files: include/lldb/Target/CPPLanguageRuntime.h i

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham added a comment. In D61921#1503331 , @xiaobai wrote: > In D61921#1503282 , @jingham wrote: > > > In D61921#1502502 , @labath wrote: > > > > > If this iteration is goi

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai added a comment. In D61921#1503282 , @jingham wrote: > In D61921#1502502 , @labath wrote: > > > If this iteration is going to be used a lot, I'd recommend taking a bit of > > time to implement an iterator a

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham added a comment. In D61921#1502352 , @xiaobai wrote: > In D61921#1502338 , @jingham wrote: > > > Getting it from the Process's m_language_runtimes is probably fine. On > > reflection, I can't think of a re

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham added a comment. In D61921#1502502 , @labath wrote: > If this iteration is going to be used a lot, I'd recommend taking a bit of > time to implement an iterator abstraction over the language runtimes. It > takes a bit longer to set up, but I hope

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

labath added a comment. If this iteration is going to be used a lot, I'd recommend taking a bit of time to implement an iterator abstraction over the language runtimes. It takes a bit longer to set up, but I hope we can all agree that `for (runtime: process->GetLanguageRuntimes()) runtime->foo(

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai added a comment. In D61921#1502338 , @jingham wrote: > Getting it from the Process's m_language_runtimes is probably fine. On > reflection, I can't think of a reason why you would want to iterate over all > the available LanguageRuntimes, includ

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham added a comment. Getting it from the Process's m_language_runtimes is probably fine. On reflection, I can't think of a reason why you would want to iterate over all the available LanguageRuntimes, including the ones that hadn't been recognized in this Process yet. It's fine to do that

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai added a comment. In D61921#1502254 , @jingham wrote: > There is a TypeSystemEnumerateSupportedLanguages that we use so that we don't > have to enumerate over all the language in the languages enums. After all > the plugin manager knows which lan

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

jingham added a comment. There is a TypeSystemEnumerateSupportedLanguages that we use so that we don't have to enumerate over all the language in the languages enums. After all the plugin manager knows which languages we have type systems for. If you're going to be doing a lot of this general

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

JDevlieghere accepted this revision. JDevlieghere added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! Comment at: source/Target/ThreadPlanStepThrough.cpp:91 + if (!m_sub_plan_sp) { +for (unsigned lang = eLanguageTypeUnknown; + !m_sub_plan_sp &&

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai marked 2 inline comments as done. xiaobai added inline comments. Comment at: source/Target/ThreadPlanStepThrough.cpp:91 + if (!m_sub_plan_sp) { +for (unsigned lang = eLanguageTypeUnknown; + !m_sub_plan_sp && lang < eNumLanguageTypes; lang++) { ---

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

JDevlieghere added inline comments. Comment at: source/Target/ThreadPlanStepThrough.cpp:91 + if (!m_sub_plan_sp) { +for (unsigned lang = eLanguageTypeUnknown; + !m_sub_plan_sp && lang < eNumLanguageTypes; lang++) { Given that we seem to have this pa

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D61921: [Target] Generalize language-specific behavior in ThreadPlanStepThrough

xiaobai created this revision. xiaobai added reviewers: jingham, JDevlieghere. When creating a ThreadPlan to step through a trampoline, we ask the ObjC language runtime and the CPP language runtime to come up with such a thread plan if the dynamic loader fails to give us one. I don't see why this