Yes, except if the target is set up to use a platform, “run” should launch the platform with some supplied args, then connect to it. Perhaps have platform args and target args; launch the platform with platform args, and pass target args to it to use when launching the inferior.
From: Todd Fiala [mailto:tfi...@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:58 AM To: Ted Woodward Cc: Zachary Turner; lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Process spawning and shutdown > I’d like to be able to have “run” be able to launch a supplied executable, > then connect to it via gdb-remote (or another protocol). That sounds a lot like running an lldb-platform for a platform, and having the lldb-platform launch the stub. That scenario sounds like it would map well to the 'platform select remote-{something}', 'platform connect connect://{remote-address}:{remote-port}' paradigm? On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Ted Woodward <ted.woodw...@codeaurora.org> wrote: I’d like to add another use case. On Hexagon, we talk to a simulator using gdb-remote. We hacked gdb to have “run” launch and connect to the simulator, and “start” do a “run”, then break at main and continue. I’ve implemented this in our lldb solution using python. I’d like to be able to have “run” be able to launch a supplied executable, then connect to it via gdb-remote (or another protocol). From: lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Zachary Turner Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:26 PM To: Todd Fiala Cc: lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Process spawning and shutdown Sure, but debugserver still has to launch processes locally w/r/t itself, so this code would jsut be used there instead of in lldb. Also, it's not clear what the timeline is and waiting would jsut be lost time, so even if some of what I do now has to be redone in the debugserver world, it's still better than being blocked now and not being able to do anything :) On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: > For now, the abstraction I'm creating deals only with local processes. For MacOSX, the local process uses debugserver for debugging (i.e. it is always remote w/r/t process startup --- lldb will launch and debugserver will attach). Linux is moving this way as well once we (1) get llgs passing the local test suite with llgs in place of ProcessLinux/ProcessMonitor, and (2) get llgs supporting the existing set of ProcessLinux/ProcessMonitor cpu architectures. It will be on a PlatformLinux switch that defaults to current TOT behavior until then. (See http://github.com/tfiala/lldb in the dev-llgs-local-launch branch for current state). Not sure that affects anything but wanted to be clear on it. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: Yea, I saw that as well. For now, the abstraction I'm creating deals only with local processes. However, it has an interface that would in theory allow a RemoteProcess to derive from it, so that local and remote processes could be managed transparently. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Todd Fiala <tfi...@google.com> wrote: Don't forget we also have launching via Platform classes, which can end up kicking off a gdb-remote request to a lldb-platform or gdb-remote stub (llgs/debugserver). Also, ProcessGDBRemote is capable of kicking those off if it's using gdb-remote locally. So, if nothing else, there's the concept of a "launch via another mechanism." On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: The last major piece of the Host layer I'd like to address is process launching and cleanup. From looking over the code it seems we have the following different ways to launch a process: MacOSX: * Applescript * XPC * posix_spawn Other posix variants: * posix_spawn Windows: * Native windows launcher Among these, there are a couple of different ways to reap processes on exit and/or "join" on them. These are: MacOSX: * Applescript [ No process reaping or monitoring occurs. ] * XPC [ Uses MacOSX-specific dispatch library for monitoring ] * posix_spawn [ Uses MacOSX-specific dispatch library for monitoring ] Other posix variants: * posix_spawn [ Launches a background thread to monitor for process exit, join on the thread to join on the process ] Windows: * Native windows launcher [ WaitForSingleObject ] A few questions: 1) Is Join() on a process a useful operation that people would be interested in seeing implemented for all platforms? 2) On Linux at least, if you don't waitpid() on a process you'll end up with zombies. It seems this is true on MacOSX as well, because I see waitpid() in StartMonitoringChildProcess. Is this not true for the Applescript launcher? Why doesn't the Applescript launching code path call StartMonitoringChildProcess() anywhere? 3) Speaking of the Applescript launcher, what is it and what is it used for? I'll probably have more questions as I wrap my head around this a little more. Thanks _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | <mailto:tfi...@google.com> tfi...@google.com | 650-943-3180 -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | <mailto:tfi...@google.com> tfi...@google.com | 650-943-3180 -- Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | <mailto:tfi...@google.com> tfi...@google.com | 650-943-3180
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
