jingham marked an inline comment as done.
jingham added a comment.
Do you think I should put more verbiage in the comment, or would this have been
clear if you were actually working on the code?
================
Comment at: source/Target/StopInfo.cpp:550
thread_sp->ResetStopInfo();
+ thread_sp->SetStopInfo(thread_sp->GetStopInfo());
}
----------------
clayborg wrote:
> Can you clarify what is going on here? Does this force a recalculation of the
> stop info? This looks really goofy from a code perspective.
This is replacing the raw stop info (a StopInfoBreakpoint) with the public -
cooked - stop info (StopInfoThreadPlan).
I think the handling of "public and private" stop info has gotten a bit muddled
up. I swear when I first did this there were distinct Public and Private stop
infos. But (I think when the StopInfo's acquired the Stop Actions many years
back) we went to having just one stop info, and when you wanted to produce a
different StopInfo from the one that you got from the Process plugin you
overwrite it.
I think it would be worth playing around with keeping these two separate. It
would make this sort of code much clearer, since then you wouldn't muck with
the truth you got from the Process plugin, but just layer the public facing
Info over top of it. But that's a much bigger change.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66241/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D66241
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
