search for: nativeprocess

You'd probably need to pull the Unwinder in if you want backtraces, but that part shouldn't be that hard to disentangle. I don't think you'd need much else? Basing your work on NativeProcess rather than lldb proper would also cut the number of observer processes in half and avoid the context switches between the server and the debugger. That seems more appropriate for a lightweight tool. Jim > On Jun 26, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Jim Ingham via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org&g...

no expression parser or knowledge of any specific programming language. Basically I just mean that the parsing of the native DWARF format itself is in scope, but anything beyond that is out of scope. For symbolication we have things like llvm-symbolizer that already just work and are built on top of LLVM's dwarf parsing code. Similarly, LLDB's type system could be built on top of it as

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 1:28 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > We have been thinking internally about a lightweight llvm-based > ptracer. To address one question up front: the primary way in which this