jingham added a comment. In D81810#2095902 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81810#2095902>, @sirmc wrote:
> Yes, I wasn't sure what the exact semantics were for step-inst for LLDB. I > think the issue is not mainly the mimicking of GDB behavior, but rather that > it is inconvenient for some use-cases. > > To give some context on why I propose this change: the current behavior is > pretty cumbersome when doing automated testing with LLDB of unknown/ > generated programs. For example making use of the Python API, AFAIK, there is > no interface where you can run a bounded number of instructions if > `lldb.SBThread.StepInstruction` is not guaranteed to return (the current hack > around it would be run this in a separate thread with a timeout). This seems entirely reasonable. It would be good to get a test case so somebody doesn't inadvertently change the behavior. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81810/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81810 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
