clayborg accepted this revision. clayborg added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D126259#3535688 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126259#3535688>, @jingham wrote: > 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. I see it, it is hard to tell what got updated. Thanks for the info. 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
