[lldb-dev] debugserver and llvm

Zachary Turner via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Aug 29 11:15:31 PDT 2016

Making a StringRefExtractor, switching everything over to that, and then
moving StringExtractor to debugserver once everything else is using
StringRefExtractor seems like a reasonable approach
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:

> > On Aug 29, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't plan to change debugserver's link requirements.  What I'm saying
> is that debugserver is including StringExtractor.h cross-project from LLDB,
> and so even something as simple as including an LLVM header from
> StringExtractor.h will (if I understand correctly) break debugserver.  If
> I'm correct, then I don't think this is an acceptable limitation for an
> LLDB project header.
> Feel free to fix it and fixup the debugserver use. The intention was to be
> able to use StringExtractor in both LLDB and debugserver and to not require
> LLVM headers for this file only. I was trying to make sure we don't have
> two copies of a very similar class and have to fix bugs in two places, but
> I see your point about the file being in LLDB.
> >
> > I have a patch locally which changes GetNameColonValue() to return two
> StringRefs instead of two std::strings, eliminating hundreds of string
> copies and is perfectly safe. So I don't see this as a particularly
> controversial change to get into LLDB, but it will require debugserver to
> keep its own local copy of StringExtractor.h, similar to how it already
> does with JSON.h and JSON.cpp.  I hoping to get this change in today since
> it is a strict improvement over the current StringExtractor.
> Feel free to do it all. I don't like having two copies of code and the
> original change where I started to use that was to avoid this, but I guess
> it will be back.
> >
> >
> > There are still some additional improvements I would like to make
> independently of this initial change, and they do culminate in changing
> StringExtractor to store an llvm::StringRef.  It turns out that while yes,
> it uses an std::string, I cannot find one single user (and I have looked at
> all of them) that depends on this. In every single case, it can use a
> StringRef with no ownership issues, and the number of string copies is
> further reduced.  So I don't see a convincing argument to keep this as
> storing a std::string.  But maybe there is something I'm not aware of?
> Just every packet handler for the GDB remote stuff.
> StringExtractorGDBRemote inherits from StringExtractor and uses the
> std::string to store the packet. Not to say that this can't be fixed with
> software.
> I still vote to just make a StringRefExtractor.h/.cpp that completely cuts
> over to using llvm::StringRef only. We can cut over to using it everywhere.
> If nothing is left inside of LLDB, we can move StringExtractor.cpp/.h over
> into the debugserver code and have it gone from LLDB.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:51 AM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > What is the status of using LLVM from debugserver?  AFAICT, it doesn't
> use llvm, but it DOES use some lldb private libraries, in which case it is
> already implicitly linking against LLVM anyway.
> > >
> > > So why can't LLVM headers be included and used from debugserver?  Just
> now I was changing the signature of an LLDB function to include an llvm
> header, and I got everything working and ready to go but searched through
> code that doesn't compile on Windows, and I noticed that debugserver
> includes some headers from lldb, and since those lldb headers are including
> llvm headers, I'm assuming this is not going to work.  But I think I'm
> missing something, because AFAICT this will already cause a link dependency
> from debugserver to llvm, and has been for some time.  So I'm not entirely
> sure what the status is of this.
> > >
> > > In any case, I know the easy way out is to just say don't include an
> llvm header from that lldb header, but I don't think that's a great idea as
> I think the patch I'm working on is a big win for performance, code
> readability, and simplicity.
> > >
> > > It looks like there is already precedent for debugserver to copy some
> code from lldb and keep a local copy in debugserver, for example JSON.h and
> JSON.cpp seem to be copies of the code from lldb/Utility.  Can this be done
> for StringExtractor.h as well so that I can reference llvm from within
> StringExtractor.h in lldb?
> >
> > debugserver currently doesn't link against any of the llvm .a files so I
> don't think it can be using any llvm stuff unless it uses header file only
> inlined functions. We aren't going to spend any time on this and we have
> builds of debugserver that link against even less (debugserver-mini) that
> the normal debugserver. So I advise you don't change debugserver's link
> requirements as we build it in many different places and we don't always
> build llvm when we build, so debugserver can't have requirements to link
> against llvm or clang .a files.
> >
> > For one I would prefer to leave StringExtractor alone. It uses the
> std::string to store the packet content and we want that the remain as is.
> I am fine with coming up with a replacement StringRefExtractor.h/.cpp that
> uses an llvm::StringRef that we cut over to using internally in LLDB, but
> again, for anyone needing the data to stay stored somewhere, they should
> use StringExtractor.cpp.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160829/d2fb04b0/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list