Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-13 Thread Greg Clayton
clayborg added a comment. So what happens if we are not connected to a remote platform? Do we get UnixSignal that are empty? Do we fall back to some constant notion of what we think the signal should be? http://reviews.llvm.org/D11094 ___

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-13 Thread Greg Clayton
clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. Looks fine, just some possible cleanup with respect to calling get_signal_number(signal_name, process): as mentioned in inlined comments. Comment at:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-10 Thread Chaoren Lin
chaoren added a comment. It would be nice from the standpoint that you might be able to grab a copy of them and modify them before any processes are launched, but I don't see us doing any of this anywhere so I would rather avoid it until we do. We do this in the gdb remote tests. I added

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-10 Thread Chaoren Lin
chaoren added inline comments. Comment at: include/lldb/API/SBUnixSignals.h:68 @@ -67,2 +67,3 @@ friend class SBProcess; +SBUnixSignals(const lldb::ProcessSP process_sp); labath wrote: You are changing the public API here. We are maintaining binary

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-10 Thread Greg Clayton
clayborg requested changes to this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed. So what is the overall goal of this patch? I am assuming the jist of this patch is to just get the JSON packet to get unix signals from the remote GDB server. The following

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-10 Thread Jim Ingham
Note, there is a document that describes the rules for coding the SB API's: http://lldb.llvm.org/SB-api-coding-rules.html if there's something there that isn't clear, feel free to clarify the text there... Jim On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Greg Clayton clayb...@gmail.com wrote: A quick

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-10 Thread Jim Ingham
jingham added a subscriber: jingham. jingham added a comment. Note, there is a document that describes the rules for coding the SB API's: http://lldb.llvm.org/SB-api-coding-rules.html if there's something there that isn't clear, feel free to clarify the text there... Jim

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-09 Thread Chaoren Lin
chaoren created this revision. chaoren added reviewers: ovyalov, clayborg. chaoren added a subscriber: lldb-commits. Herald added subscribers: tberghammer, emaste. - Consolidate Unix signals selection in Host. - Make Unix signals available from platform. - Delegate remote signal to platform. -

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D11094: Refactor Unix signals.

2015-07-09 Thread Chaoren Lin
chaoren updated this revision to Diff 29418. chaoren added a comment. - UnixSignals::Reset should be virtual. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11094 Files: include/lldb/API/SBPlatform.h include/lldb/API/SBUnixSignals.h include/lldb/Core/StructuredData.h include/lldb/Host/Host.h