jasonmolenda wrote:
> > 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. > > Oh I see your point now, and I also see the lldb is handling a `reason:xxxx` > packet from the lldb-server. In this sense, I think it is fair to treat > "swbreak/hwbreak" in the same way as "reason:breakpoint". > > @jasonmolenda do you think you can handle this along with your patch, or you > think I should do something for it preemptively as suggested by > [labath](https://github.com/labath)? I personally prefer the former case > because I am quite new to the lldb code base No problem, I'll make that change in ProcessGDBRemote when I re-land my patch (I have a few outstanding issues the CI bots found when I first landed it). My change will be untested, but it is a simple change. We already fake up a reason:watchpoint stop reason when we get `watch`/`rwatch`/`awatch` in a stop reply packet today, it will be the same kind of thing. 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
