labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.cpp:1457
@@ -1453,3 +1456,3 @@
- thread_sp = AddThread(pid);
+ thread_sp =
std::static_pointer_cast<NativeThreadLinux>(AddThread(pid));
assert (thread_sp.get() && "failed to create the tracking data for
newly created inferior thread");
----------------
ovyalov wrote:
> Since AddThread is private method of NPL we can make it to return
> NativeThreadLinuxSP.
I've been wanting to do this as well, but I'd prefer to do this as a separate
commit, if possible.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.cpp:3056
@@ +3055,3 @@
+ if (step_result.Success())
+ SetState(eStateRunning, true);
+ return step_result;
----------------
ovyalov wrote:
> Should it be eStateStepping?
That's a good question. Previously, the state of the whole process was indeed
set to eStateStepping, and I have (accidentally) failed to preserve that while
refactoring.
However, now that I think about it, this had the problem that the state of the
process was nondeterministic and depended on the order in which you resume
threads (If you are continuing one thread and stepping another, the process
state would depend on which thread you resumed last). The test suite passes, so
i think we can assume no one is depending on this stepping state now, but to
avoid introducing nondeterministic bugs in the future, I think we should just
abolish the stepping state and say that the process is running if any of its
threads are stepping or running.
What do you think?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12104
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
