[lldb-dev] Renaming lldb_private::Error

[Lang Hames via lldb-dev]

>
> /// ...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.


I immediately regret my decision to copy-paste from terminal. :/

- Lang.



On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170430/7fafe0d8/attachment.html>