[lldb-dev] difference between "platform process attach|launch" and "process attach|launch"
ovyalov at google.com
Mon Jan 26 17:05:57 PST 2015
Thank you for quick response!
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Oleksiy Vyalov <ovyalov at google.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm trying to make TestProcessAttach to pass in case of remote platform.
> I see a few problems here:
> > • lldbtest.spawnSubprocess should spawn a new process remotely
> (e.g., using A packet) when remote_platform is presented.
> > • It seems "process attach" doesn't know about selected platform
> and tries to find a local process to attach - either by pid or name (I
> don't see qLaunchGDBServer requests in platform's gdb-remote logs).
> > The main question for me here - is it expected behavior that "process
> attach|launch" always work with local processes only regardless of selected
> platform? Or if it's not the case should we delegate Process::Attach call
> to Platform::Attach and Process::Launch to Platform::ProcessLaunch?
> > Or as minimal workaround make TestProcessAttach to use "platform process
> attach" command instead?
> Yes, use the "platform process attach" command, or better yet add new API
> to SBPlatform:
> SBPlatform::Launch (SBLaunchInfo &launch_info, SBError& error);
> SBPlatform::Attach (SBAttachInfo &attach_info, SBError& error);
If it's okay I'd rather make tests to use "platform process attach/launch"
commands for verification purposes and combination of
to start/stop any process on target.
> Then we can use this API to do the launching/attaching via the SBPlatform
> object we already have stored.
Oleksiy Vyalov | Software Engineer | ovyalov at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev