jimingham wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2024, at 2:52 PM, rocallahan ***@***.***> wrote: > > > @rocallahan commented on this pull request. > > In lldb/source/Target/Process.cpp > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99736#discussion_r1687178576>: > > > @@ -3264,6 +3266,11 @@ Status Process::PrivateResume() { > // filters before resuming. > UpdateAutomaticSignalFiltering(); > > + if (m_last_run_direction != direction) { > TBH I don't understand thread plans very well yet so I was trying to avoid > interacting with them. I guess implementing your suggestion means extending > thread plans with a RunDirection, and/or creating new plan subclasses? And > then we'd have to test a lot of interactions. Would it be OK to defer that to > a future patch to keep this patch reasonably small? > Oh, for sure. In the end you will have to do something of that sort. Otherwise you'll get unexpected behavior mixing forward & backwards stepping. Plans that complete without interruption should be fine, but ones returning control to the user will start to cancel each other out, and that will get confusing. However, straight-line execution forward or backwards should be fine, and forward/backwards continue are not affected by this either. So this should still be mostly functional without the added complexity, making it appropriate to do that work as a follow-on. Jim > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99736#discussion_r1687178576>, or > unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUPVW7XSBUPBPIAKW2RCU3ZNV5IJAVCNFSM6AAAAABLFTBQAKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDCOJSGYYTCMRVGI>. > You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99736 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
