> Le 27 oct. 2014 à 19:17, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> a écrit : > > > > On Mon Oct 27 2014 at 10:52:53 AM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com > <mailto:gclay...@apple.com>> wrote: > > > On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com > > <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: > > > > What is the monitor_signals variable supposed to represent? Windows > > doesn't have signals, so maybe I can just ignore this variable. > > You can ignore this for windows. The typical way to monitor a child process > is to call waitpid() which will tell you about signals and exit status. Is > there no way to communicate anything between a process via the handle other > than the process exiting? > The handle is the only interface to the process. So basically if it's an > operation that can be performed, or a query that can be answered, it happens > through a handle. What are some use cases for setting monitor_signals to > true? For example, in Windows (at least when a process is being debugged), > we can detect things like thread creation, dll (e.g. shared object) load and > unload, exceptions (divide by zero, segfault, etc). Would this kind of thing > fall under the category of what a user might expect to monitor when > monitor_signals is true? > > If there's a way to map this monitor_signals flag to something that makes > sense on Windows, then I could try to find the common ground and change the > name of the variable accordingly. Otherwise I can just ignore it. > > > > > Looking through the code, it seems like even MacOSX doesn't use this, and > > just always sets it to false, and the only place this is ever set to true > > is in Linux and FreeBSD. Maybe Todd knows? (I don't have his email new > > address, but maybe you can +cc him on this email if you don't know the > > answer). > > We are just exposing a feature that people launching subprocesses really > might need. People can use signals to communicate between processes, so our > host layer needs to include this. Another approach would be to return a > launch error if anyone requests monitoring signals on windows. > > > > > I kind of feel like the code would be clearer if ProcessMonitor were an > > abstract interface in Host > > We don't use ProcessMonitor on MacOSX. > > > then DefaultWindowsProcessMonitor could do what it needs to do, > > DefaultPosixProcessMonitor could do what it needs to do, ProcessLaunchInfo > > could just have a pointer to a ProcessMonitor instead of both a callback > > and a baton, it would be easier to chain callbacks like this because the > > class could store a list of callbacks instead of just 1, and this > > monitor_signals flag could be a member variable of LinuxProcessMonitor so > > that other platforms wouldn't have to worry about dubiously ignoring it. > > Anyway, I've had enough refactoring for a while, just thinking out loud. > > I would prefer to avoid this and just have you ignore or return an error if > this flag is set. Reasons being, ProcessMonitor is only used by linux and > doesn't really need to be in LLDB anymore. We really should be switching over > to using lldb-gdbserver (it would be great if windows did this) so we get > remote debugging for all platforms. > > > I imagine that switching switching to lldb-gdbserver on Windows will happen > in the medium to long term, but local debugging and core dump debugging is > 90% of what we need, and also significantly less effort. Once there's more > people than just me working on it though things should happen more quickly. > > Regarding MacOSX and process monitor it does seem to monitor processes (in > the sense that it calls waitpid to get status updates), it just doesn’t use a > class called ProcessMonitor in the plugin the same way the Linux stuff does.
It uses waited only to get exist status. For other signals, they are converted into mach exception and send to the lldb process directly. -- Jean-Daniel
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
