labath added a comment. > I wish I could make this distinction in the platform, but you need a > connected process to do this.
Basically, what you're saying is that the ArchSpec alone is not sufficient to select the right platform. Instead of punching right through the layers, could we just give more information (which I guess would be the system architecture) to the functions responsible for selecting the right plugin? Then they could do the regular ask-each-plugin-if-it-wants-to-handle-it dance. The host plugin would say "I don't handle processes with system-arch=*-ios" and then we would go around until we find the remote-ios plugin saying "I live for debugging ios systems"? [I must admit that I have a bit of an ulterior motive for suggesting this -- I also have a use case where the ArchSpec is not sufficient to select the best platform, but I've struggled to formulate it in a way that makes sense upstream. The system architecture is not relevant for my case (what I'd really need is to inspect the details of the executable being debugged -- mainly its path, but possibly also some other bits), but if we open the door to more elaborate platform selection, then I might be able to squeeze this in as well. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D121444/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D121444 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
