[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D111409: proposed support for Java interface to Scripting Bridge

Fri Oct 8 14:37:44 PDT 2021

d-millar added a comment.

Discussing it with developers here, they agreed with your opinion that we really really ought to do 2.  😊

As you just noted, 3 is trickier.  Java doesn't really have a REPL.  It has jshell - we're not sure that counts.  In any case, am up for tackling 2.  Will keep you posted - might take me a bit.  In the meantime, happy to hear any further thoughts, advice, etc.

Thanks!

________________________________

From: lldb-commits <lldb-commits-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of David Millar via lldb-commits <lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 2:44:06 PM
To: anoronha at apple.com; fallkrum at yahoo.com; kkleine at redhat.com; teemperor at gmail.com; medismail.bennani at gmail.com; jonas at devlieghere.com; tedwood at quicinc.com; jmolenda at apple.com; syaghmour at apple.com; jingham at apple.com; vsk at apple.com; boris.ulasevich at gmail.com; lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org; h.imai.833 at nitech.jp; bruce.mitchener at gmail.com; david.spickett at linaro.org; quic_sourabhs at quicinc.com; djordje.todorovic at syrmia.com; serhiy.redko at gmail.com; Liburd1994 at outlook.com; Jim Ingham
Subject: Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D111409 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409>: proposed support for Java interface to Scripting Bridge

Just to clarify my use case:  I am one of the developers for a reverse-engineering tool called Ghidra.  Part of the tool is debugging-support to allow cross-over between dynamic and static analysis.  We currently support windbg/kd, the gcc MI2 interface, and direct Java debugging.  I have a working prototype for lldb, but it requires users to patch and rebuild lldb, which may be a heavy lift for some.  While it falls outside of my use case, I am quite willing to attempt implementing pieces 2 & 3 from Mr. Ingham's post.

________________________________

From: Jim Ingham via Phabricator <reviews at reviews.llvm.org>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 2:31:13 PM
To: David Millar; anoronha at apple.com; fallkrum at yahoo.com; kkleine at redhat.com; teemperor at gmail.com; medismail.bennani at gmail.com; jonas at devlieghere.com; tedwood at quicinc.com; jmolenda at apple.com; syaghmour at apple.com; jingham at apple.com; vsk at apple.com; boris.ulasevich at gmail.com; lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org; h.imai.833 at nitech.jp; bruce.mitchener at gmail.com; david.spickett at linaro.org; quic_sourabhs at quicinc.com; djordje.todorovic at syrmia.com; serhiy.redko at gmail.com; Liburd1994 at outlook.com
Cc: mgorny at gentoo.org
Subject: [PATCH] D111409 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409>: proposed support for Java interface to Scripting Bridge

jingham added a comment.

Support for a scripting language in lldb has three distinct pieces.

1. Making the SB API's available to the scripting languages
2. Adding all the callbacks so the scripting language can be used for breakpoint callbacks, data formatters, etc.
3. Adding a REPL for that language to the "script" command

This patch does #1, but not #2 & #3.  Do we care about whether new scripting languages will be able to provide the full "scripting language" experience?  Does there need to be some plan for this before we add on the task of supporting the language?  Maybe it's okay to say "a REPL's too hard, and not worth it" but we should have a plan for adding in the callback interfaces?  Do we want to have somewhere you can advertise levels of support?  I would be sad to spend some time using a scripting language for lldb only to find it doesn't allow me to write breakpoint callbacks, for instance.

This is language #3 so it seems like a fit time to discuss this...

Repository:

  rLLDB LLDB

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409

Repository:
  rLLDB LLDB

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D111409