ted added a comment. In D71372#1813703 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372#1813703>, @labath wrote:
> In D71372#1813142 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372#1813142>, @ted wrote: > > > In D71372#1811594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372#1811594>, @labath wrote: > > > > > In D71372#1810687 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372#1810687>, @ted wrote: > > > > > > > I've got another failure case for this. If the remote gdbserver doesn't > > > > implement qMemoryRegionInfo or qXfer:memory-map:read, thread step-out > > > > will fail. > > > > .... > > > > > > > > > That's a good point Ted. I think we should give targets which don't > > > support fetching permissions the benefit of the doubt, and treat all > > > memory as potentially executable. Would removing the `return` statement > > > from the `if(!GetLoadAddressPermissions)` branch solve your problem? If > > > so, can you whip up a patch for that? > > > > > > Removing the return statement fixes the issue. I'll put up a patch. Keeping > > the m_constructor_errors.Printf line doesn't cause a failure; it might be > > useful to keep that in case the breakpoint can't be created for other > > reasons. What do you think? > > > I don't care much either way.. Since you have this kind of a target around, > you can judge whether printing this error/warning after each "finish" would > be useful or just annoying. Another possibility would be to don't print the > error to the command output, but still emit something into the log... There's no message printed after each finish; I think the message will only be printed if there's another error. That's fine by me. I've uploaded the patch in D72513 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72513>. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71372 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
