jingham added a comment. In D126259#3535004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126259#3535004>, @clayborg wrote:
> In D126259#3534997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126259#3534997>, @jingham wrote: > >> Don't allow setting signal actions by signal number before you have a >> process. > > I understand > >> We don't know what signal 20 is going to end up being till we have a >> process, so allowing this by number doesn't make sense. > > I am saying that it would be a good idea to make sure an error is returned > when you do try and set a signal by number before a process exists and make > sure there is a test that covers this if it isn't already in the current > patch. I think we crossed paths. I added that in the last update of the diff. The test is TestHandleProcess.py:20, and the code to enforce it starts around 1671 of CommandObjectProcess.cpp. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126259/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126259 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
