fallkrum marked 9 inline comments as done.
fallkrum added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp:3977
+ } else {
+ /*
+ For the sake of logical consistency. For example we have only
----------------
jingham wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure about this part. Setting the "have_valid_stopinfo_ptr
> would only matter if we stopped and no non-suspended thread had a valid stop
> reason. That's really only going to happen because there was a bug in the
> stub, but when this happens we really can't figure out what to do. The
> suspended thread's StopInfo isn't going to help us because it is stale by now.
>
> I think the right thing to do in this case is say nobody had an opinion, and
> let the upper layers deal with whether they want to ignore a seemingly
> spurious stop, or stop and let the user decide what to do.
Removed, will return false.
================
Comment at:
lldb/test/API/functionalities/thread/ignore_suspended/TestIgnoreSuspendedThread.py:46
+ #The breakpoint list should show 1 locations.
+ self.expect(
+ "breakpoint list -f",
----------------
jingham wrote:
> What you are testing in this `self.expect` is already all tested by
> run_break_set_by_file_and_line. I don't think you need to repeat it. If you
> want to assert that the breakpoint was set exactly on the line number
> requested, just pass `loc_exact = True` as well as num_expected_locations.
I'v copied it from another test. Have no need in this, removed.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80112/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D80112
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
