Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

> On Aug 23, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Greg Clayton > wrote: > This isn't a work around right? You should be triggering your reverse step or > reverse continue using a "process reverse-continue" or "thread revers

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > This isn't a work around right? You should be triggering your reverse step > or reverse continue using a "process reverse-continue" or "thread > reverse-step" right? If you do this, everything will just work. There > should be no way this ha

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

This isn't a work around right? You should be triggering your reverse step or reverse continue using a "process reverse-continue" or "thread reverse-step" right? If you do this, everything will just work. There should be no way this happens automagically without user interaction. Am I missing so

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

Yeah, this `bs` + `stepi` dance is the only workaround I found so far. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Greg Clayton wrote: > There is a standard for reverse stepping where the GDB remote protocol was > extended to do the reverse stepping. See: > > https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Pack

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

ora Forum, a > Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > From: lldb-dev [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Greg > Clayton via lldb-dev > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:20 PM > To: Vadim Chugunov > Cc: LLDB > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refre

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

ov Cc: LLDB Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state You need to send some sort of continue through the GDB remote interface. The only way to get a $T packet back is in response to a "?" packet or to a "vCont" or other continue or step packet.

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

You need to send some sort of continue through the GDB remote interface. The only way to get a $T packet back is in response to a "?" packet or to a "vCont" or other continue or step packet. > On Aug 22, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > > It does send '$T05...' in response, but it loo

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

It does send '$T05...' in response, but it looks like lldb does not analyze responses to manually sent packets. On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Greg Clayton wrote: > If you do a reverse step it actually should send a process resumed and a > process stopped event. > > > On Aug 18, 2017, at 7:19

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

If you do a reverse step it actually should send a process resumed and a process stopped event. > On Aug 18, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Vadim via lldb-dev > wrote: > > I'm trying to reverse-step. So I think I'd need to refresh all thread states? > >> On Aug 18, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: >>

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

I'm trying to reverse-step. So I think I'd need to refresh all thread states? > On Aug 18, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Jim Ingham wrote: > > No, there hasn't been a need for this. > > What commands are you planning to send? Or equivalently, how much state are > you expecting to change? > > Jim > >

Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

No, there hasn't been a need for this. What commands are you planning to send? Or equivalently, how much state are you expecting to change? Jim > On Aug 18, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Vadim Chugunov via lldb-dev > wrote: > > Hi, > Is there any way to force lldb to refresh it's internal record of d

[lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state

Hi, Is there any way to force lldb to refresh it's internal record of debuggee process state (as if it had just received a stop event)? I want to send a custom command to remote gdb process stub (via `process plugin packet send`). This works, but if the command alters debuggee state, lldb won't k