[lldb-dev] Renaming lldb_private::Error

[Lang Hames via lldb-dev]

Hi Zachary,

I'm new to LLDB so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but this sounds
like a good idea to me. LLDB is likely to encounter more and more LLVM APIs
using llvm::Error in the future, so renaming lldb_private::Error to reduce
confusion seems sensible.

Replacing lldb_private::Error at some point in the future probably makes
sense too. The author of lldb_private::Error seems to have had a similar
idea:

/// ...In the future we may wish to switch to a


/// registration mechanism where new error types can be registered at


/// runtime instead of a hard coded scheme.

The challenge here will be interoperability with the python APIs, which
look like they map the current lldb_private::Error into Python. That will
take some thought, but I think it should be possible.

For any LLDB devs who are interested in llvm::Error, the lightning talk
that introduced it is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq8fNK98WGw , and
the API is covered in more detail in the LLVM programmer's manual:
http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#recoverable-errors .

Cheers,
Lang.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> I have a patch locally that renames lldb_private::Error to
> lldb_private::LLDBError.  As you might expect, this is a pretty large patch
> so I don't plan to put it up for review, but since it's kind of a
> fundamental class I figured I should at least start a discussion.
>
> The primary motivation for this is to enable cleaner interop between
> lldb's Error class and llvm::Error.  Currently there is an ambiguity
> between the two.  Obviously they are scoped in different namespaces, but
> it's still confusing when looking at code to see such similarly named
> classes.
>
> There are a number of advantages to llvm::Error over lldb Error which I'm
> happy to elaborate on if anyone needs some clarification (I've also cc'ed
> lang on here, who wrote the original llvm Error implementation).
>
> Long term I would eventually like to deprecate lldb's Error class
> entirely, and switch entirely to llvm::Error.  An intermediate transition
> phase would likely involve making something like LLDBWrapError which
> interoperates with llvm::Error and wraps an lldb_private::LLDBError.
>
> For now though, I'm only proposing a very simple rename with minimal
> invasiveness.
>
> Comments?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20170430/3efe0431/attachment.html>