[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D48049: Add a new SBTarget::LoadCore() overload which surfaces errors if the load fails

Leonard Mosescu via lldb-commits lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jun 13 10:39:57 PDT 2018

The intention in the scope of this change is just to check that the new
overload is exposed correctly through the Python API.

In general, guaranteeing specific error codes (messages?) is likely

1. It's not always easy to do the proper checks (ex. for 'file-not-found'
you'd actually get a null process, nothing more - see SBTarget::LoadCore()).
2. It's unlikely that many clients need or want to check for specific
3. Such a strict contract would be very fragile (ex. adding more specific
error condition detection would likely break the contract)

Perhaps ironically, I could take advantage of very specific error codes for
my scenario, but I don't think it's feasible. So for LoadCore() I'd like to
aim for more of a middle ground: accurate success/fail status + an
informative error content that can be used for diagnostics (logging) and
maybe as a weak hint.

What do you think?

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Adrian McCarthy via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> amccarth added inline comments.
> ================
> Comment at: lldb/trunk/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/
> functionalities/postmortem/minidump-new/TestMiniDumpNew.py:78
> +        self.assertFalse(self.process, PROCESS_IS_VALID)
> +        self.assertTrue(error.Fail())
> +
> ----------------
> Is it worth checking something more specific here?  That the error
> indicates the file was not found?
> Repository:
>   rL LLVM
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D48049
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180613/17554c24/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-commits mailing list