[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] Implements a HostThread class.
zturner at google.com
Thu Aug 28 19:07:11 PDT 2014
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:50 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> > I toiled over this question for a while, but ultimately decided against
> a base class with virtual methods because there will only ever be 1 type of
> HostThread per host platform. For example, on MacOSX, the HostThread type
> is HostThreadMacOSX. There's no need for polymorphism or the overhead that
> comes with virtual dispatch. Furthermore it complicates things. Suppose
> you have a HostThreadBase, and you pass a pointer to this into some mac
> specific class. Now it has to cast, which is ugly.
> > It's true, there is a level of awkwardness that comes with collecting
> together the intersection of all the derived types. However, it's
> something that we could do, for example, inside of HostThread.h and
> document the common interface there in a comment. In the grand scheme of
> what I'm envisioning, you will need to use Host code from outside of Host
> (obviously), but this will be the exception, at well-defined entry points
> into the host layer, with a vast majority of host code being used from
> within itself. This internal code would have access to the full interface
> since it's already under the assumption that it's compiling for the
> specific platform.
> > Let me know if it's not clear.
> It is clear, but I don't think I agree with it.
> The overhead doesn't worry me, few if any of the host methods are going to
> be used in a tight loop where the cost of virtual methods will actually
> And I'm not sure I buy the "casting" awkwardness argument all that much,
> since for the most part the Host specific parts of the HostXXX
> implementations are going to be in the methods that implement each class -
> operating on "this" which is already of the full host specific type. The
> number of times I will have to reach into the Host specific methods of an
> object not the one I'm implementing doesn't seem likely to be all that
I agree that the performance overhead of virtual methods isn't significant.
On the other hand, it feels strange to use a language feature which
changes the way code is generated just for the purposes of documentation.
That's usually what comments are for. That said, I don't feel that
strongly about it, so I'm willing to make a base class with a common
interface. It's surprisingly difficult to make a useful common interface
for a thread though, because even methods that seem to make logical sense
on all platforms are sometimes semantically different enough that it's
difficult to find a function signature that has the stuff you need on every
platform. But it's worth trying.
One thing I do feel kind of strongly about though is the idea of accessing
this through a base class pointer or reference. Who wants to deal with a
base class when you can have the derived class? It introduces extra,
error-prone lines of code for no practical benefit.
> Further, if the host interface is well designed, when I'm implementing a
> method of some Host specific class and I get handed a Host object which is
> not the one I'm currently implementing, the generic HostBase interface will
> probably do just fine.
Why would this ever happen? If you're implementing a method of a Host
specific class and you get handed a Host object, it is necessarily the Host
object for the same platform as the other object you're implementing.
There's no such thing as an xxxWindows when you're on Mac. You'll
necessarily have an xxxMacOSX (or an xxxPosix, or whatever else is the most
derived version of xxx for MacOSX). Every host object that is passed
around anywhere will always just be the exact type you need for your
current platform. This means you might break a compile on another
platform, but in my opinion that's actually better than the alternative of
providing a default method that does nothing, or asserts, because it forces
you to think about whether you really have the right abstraction.
Additionally, if someone were porting to a different platform, they will
know just by compiling LLDB on their new platform exactly the areas where
they need to fix up, because the compile will break, as opposed to just
running into strange runtime bugs that they have to track down and find out
that there's some method that just returns NULL (and then shortly after,
find out that the entire method is something that doesn't even make sense
on their platform).
> Also, I'd like it if generic lldb code didn't ever use Host specific code
> that wasn't part of the base host interface. If you really need it you
> should do the work to make it generic. Making the HostWhateverBase classes
> real in the header files that generic code includes would remove the
> temptation to just put in a little #if HOST_THREAD_TYPE ==. You would have
> to actually include the host specific file, at which point you would know
> you were doing a bad thing...
Agree with this, but I think the solution I'm proposing already solves
that, albeit in a slightly different way. If you use something that is too
specific for the area of code that you're working in (e.g. call
process.LaunchXPC or whatever) the compile will just break on other
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-commits