labath added a comment. In D96176#2547324 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96176#2547324>, @augusto2112 wrote:
> In D96176#2546777 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96176#2546777>, @labath wrote: > >> One alternative could be to just tack on some extra data to the existing >> vAttach family packets (`vAttachWait;foo;interval:47;duration=74`). > > This was how I did it originally on https://reviews.llvm.org/D93895. > @clayborg pointed out that this might not be compatible with existing > lldb-server implementations, and suggested a new packet. If we only append the extra fields when the user explicitly requests them, then I don't think this would be a compatibility issue. The way I see it, one of two things can happen in this case: a) the server ignores the extra fields and completes the attach with the default values b) the server balks at the packet, and returns an error I think both of them are reasonable results and they can be fixed/worked around in the same way -- just drop the special requests... >>> Lastly, this current implementation has a bug I couldn't figure out, where >>> if we're sending l an error response, lldb loses connection to lldb-server >>> (this happens even if the first thing I do in the handle_jAttachWait >>> function is return an error) >> >> I'm not sure that's a bug (i.e., lldb may be intentionally dropping the >> connection). What would you expect lldb to do when it gets an error response? > > To expand on the error, if I change `handle_vAttachWait` to immediately > return an error with string "foo", lldb will print out: `error: attach > failed: foo`, while if I do the same on `handle_jAttachWait` if will print > out: `error: attach failed: lost connection`, so we lose the error message. > >>> and, also, CTRL+C from lldb doesn't interrupt lldb-server. If anyone know >>> why this might be happening, I'd be glad to hear it. >> >> Seems to work for me (in that I get back to the lldb prompt and the server >> connection is terminated), if I press ^C **twice**. > > What I mean is that my new packet has these problems, and `vAttachWait` > doesn't. I'm confused because I believe I implemented all the parts the same > as the other `vAttach` functions. Hm.. I don't know.. I guess you'll have to step through the code to find where it diverges... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96176/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96176 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
