labath wrote: > > Just to be clear, if I'm understanding the packet we'll be getting back, we > > have no indication that we hit the breakpoint, we only show that we are > > stopped at an address which has a breakpoint. Current lldb stepping > > behavior will work -- because the rule is, when we stop at a breakpoint > > address, we will say we hit the breakpoint. I am refining a patch #96260 > > which changes this behavior -- we handle "instruction stepped / stopped at > > a breakpoint" differently than "hit a breakpoint". I worry this difference > > will be lost with a stub that reports `swbreak`/`hwbreak`, stepping won't > > work correctly, and we won't capture it in the testsuite or on any of our > > CI bots. > > My work mainly concerns the case when lldb is connected to a gdbserver, and > as far as I can tell, gdbserver does not send a `reason:breakpoint` packet at > all. Maybe lldb-server sends it?
Yes, it does. > Also, I do not think lldb itself is adjusting the PC -- I think lldb-server > does it, and that is also the reason why my PR did not need to alter the lldb > behavior at all. lldb always expects the remote to have adjusted the PC if > necessary, and it just uses whatever value that is reported That is true, but I believe Jason is saying something slightly different. Currently you are able to use lldb+gdbserver because lldb treats a stop as a breakpoint hit every time we stop and the PC value is equal to one of the breakpoints. Jason's [patch](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96260) will change that and have lldb report a breakpoint hit only if it server tells it that was the reason for the stop. lldb-server does that (`reason:breakpoint`), and everything will work fine, but that will most likely break your use case. To (preemtively) fix that, you should probably change lldb to recognize the gdb response (`swbreak`) and treat it the same way as the one from lldb-server. Ideally, you should also add a test to make sure this works (and stays working) -- for that, you could probably extend the test you added here to check that lldb reports the correct stop reason. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102873 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
