labath added a comment. In D64647#1609712 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64647#1609712>, @mgorny wrote:
> Not sure if we're taking about the same thing. I meant the status in resume > actions. I think it'd be logical if 'no action' meant 'resume in same state > as prior to stopping the process', and explicit eStateS* meant 'keep this > thread stopped after resuming'. Ah, you're right, we weren't talking about the same thing. I see what you mean now... I can see how explicit modelling of suspension in resume actions would make sense. And it would definitely map better to how netbsd controls threads. OTOH, I think the current semantics (no action => keep stopped) makes sense too, and it maps better to how the gdb protocol represents resume actions. So either way, you have to do the conversion somewhere... CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64647/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64647 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
