Jim, The initial developers of lldb-mi perhaps did not want to use the classes from lldb_private inside lldb-mi. So in some cases, they sort of duplicated the code for things like Mutex in lld-mi which are already available in host layer. If there are no objections on using lldb_private inside lldb-mi then I can remove that code duplication.
Regards, Abid > -----Original Message----- > From: lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of jing...@apple.com > Sent: 20 March 2015 11:58 > To: Tamas Berghammer > Cc: lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] RFC: Namespaces in lldb > > My take: > > Local classes that are in just in .cpp files should go in the anonymous > namespace. We didn't start out doing it that way, not all local classes > follows this rule. Thats just a bug, feel free to fix that wherever you come > across it. Everything else should be in lldb or lldb_private. Anything that > might be useful to for the SB API's but is also useful for core lldb should be > in the lldb namespace. Everything else should be in lldb_private. > > I don't think we need to split it finer than that at present. I don't see any > reason to leave any classes in the global namespace, but again I think where > we are doing that it is just because we didn't start out putting all our local > classes in the anonymous namespace. > > Jim > > > On Mar 20, 2015, at 4:58 AM, Tamas Berghammer > <tbergham...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > In lldb I see that most of the classes are leaving in the lldb or in the > lldb_private namespace but we have some class in the global scope. What is > the rule we want to use about placing our classes in namespaces? When we > want to put a class into lldb, when we want to put it into lldb_private and > when we want to leave it in the global scope (do we want to leave anything > in the global namespace)? > > > > The current stage is that we have the classes in "lldb/API" and a few other > files in the lldb namespace, a lot of thing in the lldb_private namespace and > some class in the global namespace. As a first approximation I would suggest > to keep the classes in "lldb/API" in the lldb namespace and everything else in > lldb_private but it might not be sufficient in all cases. > > > > I think this issue doesn't cause us any major problem right now, so I don't > plan to move every class to the proper namespace with a few commits but I > hope we can make an agreement about what is the preferred location for > the different classes and then make progress to move them to the right > place (e.g.: when somebody do bigger changes to a class what is not in the > correct namespace he/she can also move it to the right place). > > > > Tamas > > _______________________________________________ > > lldb-dev mailing list > > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
