mgorny added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationServerCommon.cpp:661-664
+ if (mode != llvm::sys::fs::perms_not_known)
+ response.Printf("F%x", mode);
+ else
+ response.Printf("F-1,%x", (int)Status(ec).GetError());
----------------
labath wrote:
> mgorny wrote:
> > labath wrote:
> > > Unless I'm mistaken, the test does not actually run this code (as it
> > > tests the client bits).
> > Yes, this is the case. Adding tests for the server is a bit out of scope
> > for what I'm working on.
> Why is that? You did have them in the other patches I looked at...
>
> Batching these changes in this way is particularly unfortunate because a
> casual observer might conclude that you actualy _are_ including a test for
> the bug you've fixed.
Just to be clear, are we talking of adding a generic server-side test for
`vFile:mode`, or specifically one that triggers an error? Though thinking about
it a bit more, using a file that does not exist should be good enough to
trigger this.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107809/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107809
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
