Ok, thanks Todd!
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Andrew, this looks fine. It also tested out just fine as well. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure thing :-) >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Andrew MacPherson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Great, thanks Todd! >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I just finished clearing out some Linux test errors (I'm now all green >>>> on Linux x86_64). I'll add this to a queue I've got with some changes from >>>> Piotr, Ed and you in it now. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Andrew MacPherson < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just pinging this again in case anyone has a chance to review the >>>>> small Linux detach patch here. Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Andrew MacPherson < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm attaching a patch here that resolves the issue of a signal being >>>>>> delivered to the inferior on detach, let me know if I should start a new >>>>>> thread for this but since it's related to what we were discussing I'm >>>>>> attaching it here. To reproduce the issue just launch a process, then in >>>>>> a >>>>>> new terminal: >>>>>> >>>>>> sudo lldb -p <pid> >>>>>> c >>>>>> q >>>>>> >>>>>> When quitting the inferior receives a SIGSTOP because the process is >>>>>> already running when the PTRACE_DETACH is sent. I can't find a clear >>>>>> answer >>>>>> on what's supposed to happen here (PTRACE_DETACH sent to running thread) >>>>>> but this is the behaviour I'm seeing. The docs do indicate that >>>>>> PRACE_DETACH is like PTRACE_CONT and should only be sent to a stopped >>>>>> thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also tried to add a unit test for this and the previous patch, >>>>>> however I hit http://llvm.org/pr16172. The tests these two patches >>>>>> require are similar to the one mentioned in that case and I get the same >>>>>> errors in my sample test as when running that one: >>>>>> >>>>>> attach -p <pid> (ok) >>>>>> c (ok) >>>>>> detach (error: Detach failed: No such process) >>>>>> >>>>>> And: >>>>>> >>>>>> attach -p <pid> (ok) >>>>>> c (ok) >>>>>> process interrupt (ok) >>>>>> c (error: Failed to resume process: Resume request failed - process >>>>>> still running..) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Ed Maste <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21 March 2014 15:14, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> > I'm pretty sure we have some test cases that test attach. If we >>>>>>> don't, then it would be great to add one. If we do, then it would be >>>>>>> interesting to see why they didn't fail. For instance, maybe they just >>>>>>> didn't bother to try "continue" after the attach. Just adding that >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> be good too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We definitely have some, because they used to fail early on in the >>>>>>> FreeBSD porting effort. I suspect that your suggestion is correct >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> they just don't do anything but attach and then quit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On a related note, I'm pretty sure we don't have tests for detach. >>>>>>> I'll see about extending tests to include that at some point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180 >> > > > > -- > Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180 >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
