================ @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// +// +// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. +// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information. +// SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception +// +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + +#include "DynamicLoaderAcceleratorGDBRemote.h" +#include "Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/ProcessGDBRemote.h" +#include "lldb/Core/Module.h" +#include "lldb/Core/PluginManager.h" +#include "lldb/Core/Section.h" +#include "lldb/Target/Target.h" +#include "lldb/Utility/LLDBLog.h" +#include "lldb/Utility/Log.h" + +using namespace lldb; +using namespace lldb_private; +using namespace lldb_private::process_gdb_remote; + +LLDB_PLUGIN_DEFINE(DynamicLoaderAcceleratorGDBRemote) + +DynamicLoader * +DynamicLoaderAcceleratorGDBRemote::CreateInstance(Process *process, + bool force) { + // The library list comes from the accelerator's GDB server. + if (process->GetPluginName() != ProcessGDBRemote::GetPluginNameStatic()) + return nullptr; + if (force) + return new DynamicLoaderAcceleratorGDBRemote(process); + + const llvm::Triple &triple = + process->GetTarget().GetArchitecture().GetTriple(); + if (triple.isAMDGPU() || triple.isNVPTX()) ---------------- satyajanga wrote:
@clayborg I am confused. cpu-process calls the accelerator-plugin-initialize, but gpu-process needs the dyld-plugin-name. I think we want gpu-llgs to tell which dyld-plugin to use. so in that case accelerator-initialize response is not the right place. So I believe your jLLDBSettings is more cleaner approach. I will rename this packet to jLLDBProcessSettings and do the same logic. let me know what you think? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/217393 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
