clayborg added a comment.
See inlined comments. Just some questions on wether we are going to reuse the
other existing "tTrace*" packets, or if we are going to make new ones.
================
Comment at: lldb/docs/lldb-gdb-remote.txt:249
+// "pluginName": <lldb trace plug-in name, e.g. intel-pt>
+// "description": <optional description string for this technology>
+// }
----------------
Can't IntelPT exist on a machine but not be enabled? If so I would suggest
adding a few more key values:
```
"enabled": <boolean>,
"enableInstructions": <string>
```
"enabled" would say if this tracing mechanism is currently installed and if it
is enabled or not.
"enableInstructions" could clarify what you would have to do to enable this
tracing feature, like run a "sudo" command, or enable a kernel module and
reboot, etc.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp:3462
+ StreamGDBRemote escaped_packet;
+ escaped_packet.PutCString("jTraceSupportedType");
+
----------------
So are we going to reuse all of the other "jTrace*" packets and possibly expand
their usage? If so, then this name is good. If we are going to make new
packets for tracing then "jLLDBTraceSupportedType" might make more sense and
all commands we would add would start with "jLLDBTrace".
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90490/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D90490
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
