[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] Extend SBPlatform with capability to launch/terminate a process remotely. Integrate this change into test framework in order to spawn processes on a remote target.

[Ilia K]

================
Comment at: include/lldb/API/SBPlatform.h:106-134
@@ -102,2 +105,31 @@
 
+    class SBPlatformLaunchCommand
+    {
+    public:
+        SBPlatformLaunchCommand (const char* command,
+                                 const char* working_dir,
+                                 const char* arch);
+
+        const char*
+        GetCommand () const;
+
+        const char*
+        GetWorkingDir () const;
+
+        const char*
+        GetArch () const;
+
+        const lldb::pid_t&
+        GetPID () const;
+
+        void
+        SetPID (const lldb::pid_t& pid);
+
+    private:
+        const std::string m_command;
+        const std::string m_working_dir;
+        const std::string m_arch;
+        lldb::pid_t m_pid;
+    };
+
     class SBPlatform
----------------
ovyalov wrote:
> clayborg wrote:
> > Can't we just use SBLaunchInfo instead of this?
> > 
> >  Also one thing to note: if you add anything to the lldb::SB API, you can only have one member variable: a pointer, an std::unique_ptr<> or a std::shared_pointer<>. Why? Because we are vending a C++ interface and you can't change the size of the class. When people link against the lldb.so, they need a consistent API and layout of classes in case they make classes that inherit from or use a lldb::SB class so the layout can never change. So to work around this we have rules:
> > 
> > 1 - lldb::SB classes have one ivar (ptr, unique_ptr, or shared_ptr) which abstracts you from your implementation and makes sure the size of the lldb::SB object never changes
> > 2 - no virtual functions so that all function lookups are based off of a pure name lookup by the dynamic linkers (no vtable that can change on you)
> > 3 - No inheritance, or only inheritance based on other lldb::SB classes that obey the same rules
> Thanks for suggestions and context.
> 
> I think it makes sense to use SBLaunchInfo instead of SBPlatformLaunchCommand since SBLaunchInfo is a wrapper around ProcessLaunchInfo which Platform::LaunchProcess takes as a parameter. A few follow-up questions:
> - Is it ok to remove friendship between SBLaunchInfo and SBTarget and make SBLaunchInfo::ref public since it will be used by SBPlatform and SBTarget? Or we can make SBPlatform its friend as well..
> - I'm going to add SBLaunchInfo::GetProcessID that will delegate to ProcessLaunchInfo::SBLaunchInfo - so, I can grab pid of launched process.
> - Does it sound okay to extract SBLaunchInfo into separate SBLaunchInfo.h(cpp) files?
> Is it ok to remove friendship between SBLaunchInfo and SBTarget and make SBLaunchInfo::ref public since it will be used by SBPlatform and SBTarget? Or we can make SBPlatform its friend as well..
I think we can make its friend. The ref() must be a private.

> Does it sound okay to extract SBLaunchInfo into separate SBLaunchInfo.h(cpp) files?
Yes.

http://reviews.llvm.org/D7263

EMAIL PREFERENCES
  http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/