[lldb-dev] Returning multiple values in Python API function

[Greg Clayton via lldb-dev]

The 'A' packet is for launching a process that is to be debugged only, it isn't supposed to be used just to launch a process that should just run. If the 'A' packet is being used in lldb-server in platform mode, then it is just wrong. We should probably pull it out of the server, or return an error if it gets used in platform mode.

Greg

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 3:48 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On 22 October 2016 at 00:17, Francis Ricci via lldb-dev
> <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Francis Ricci via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm looking to add Platform::LaunchGDBServer() to the SBPlatform API,
>>>> but it requires two return values - an lldb::pid_t and a string url.
>>>> Internally, we just pass by reference, but we can't do that in the
>>>> API. Any suggestions on how to do this, since we can't pass primitives
>>>> by reference from Python?
>>>> 
>>>> My current thinking was to use the pid_t as the return value, and then
>>>> figure out a way to communicate the string information as an "out"
>>>> function parameter. Ideas there included using an SBStream&, as the
>>>> GetDescription() functions do, but that doesn't seem optimal.
>>>> 
>>>> In standard Python, we'd just use a tuple return value, but I don't
>>>> see any way to do that using the swig interface.
>>>> 
>>>> The reasoning behind adding this API function is to prevent the
>>>> platform-mode GdbRemote tests from launching the gdbserver using an
>>>> 'A' packet instead of the standard 'qLaunchGDBServer' packet.
>>> 
>>> I am still unclear as to why you want this? An lldb-server that is launched in platform mode shouldn't use the 'A' packet at all.
>> 
>> Right. The problem is that our test suite (specifically the
>> lldb-server tests) uses the 'A' packet to spawn the inferior for
>> lldb-server's which are launched in platform mode.
>> 
>>> Can you elaborate on why you need this more? Why do we need to prevent it from using an 'A' packet in the first place? What is leading to this happening?
>> 
>> gdbremote_testcase.py, in launch_debug_monitor, calls
>> self.spawnSubprocess() on the lldb-server exe.
>> 
>> This in turn calls _RemoteProcess.launch() in lldbtest.py, which calls
>> lldb.remote_platform.Launch(), which will use the 'A' packet, with the
>> path to the lldb-server.
>> 
>> I think this is broken, and the qLaunchGDBServer packet should be used
>> instead. The problem is that there currently isn't a good way to use
>> this packet from the Python API.
>> 
>> It is somewhat odd to me that the platform-mode lldb-server even
>> accepts the 'A' packet, but it appears to, given that the `Handle_A`
>> method is contained in `GDBRemoteCommunicationServerCommon` and not
>> `GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS`.
> 
> Yes, but then it calls into virtual
> GDBRemoteCommunicationServerCommon::LaunchProcess, which is
> implemented differently in the platform and gdb-remote instance.
> 
> What is the actual problem you are trying to solve here? It it's just
> the fact that we use the A packet to launch non-debuggable processes,
> then I think you should just change which packet is used by
> PlatformRemoteGDBServer::LaunchProcess. I don't see the need for a new
> API.
> 
> Is there any issue that arises from launching the server instance via
> A packet instead of qLaunchGDBServer? The way I understand these
> tests, they're supposed to test the capabilities of LLGS in isolation.
> The way you start the LLGS instance is peripheral. In fact it may be
> even better to isolate the launching process from whatever magic
> qLaunchGDBServer is doing. Also, giving the tests more control over
> how you start the LLGS instance means you can test starting it in a
> way that it would not be started by qLaunchGDBServer. (e.g. I don't
> think you can convince that packet to run LLGS in the
> "inferior-supplied-on-the-command-line mode" (lldb-server g --
> ./a.out), which is still a valid mode of using the tool and needs to
> be tested).
> 
> pl