jaydeep added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteCommunicationClient.cpp:3579
@@ +3578,3 @@
+ */
+ if (!response.IsNormalResponse() && thread_ids.size() == 0 &&
IsConnected())
+ {
----------------
labath wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > The problem behind the failures seems to be this: when we connect to the
> > remote lldb-server, it should not have any processes or threads running (we
> > will start those with the A packet later). We verify this in
> > ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:837. This translates to a qfThreadInfo packet, to
> > which our stub responds with OK.
> >
> > This sounds like a bug in the stub, as the protocol does not mention that
> > as a possibility. I will prepare a patch for that shortly. Could you please
> > wait with this patch a bit until the bugfix lands?
> >
> > Also, this got me thinking.. What is the response of your stub to the
> > qfThreadInfo packet. If it is something like '?', then we could check for
> > `response.IsUnsupportedResponse()` and we will avoid an overly broad check
> > for your corner case. What do you think?
> > The problem behind the failures seems to be this: when we connect to the
> > remote lldb-server, it should not have any processes or threads running (we
> > will start those with the A packet later). We verify this in
> > ProcessGDBRemote.cpp:837. This translates to a qfThreadInfo packet, to
> > which our stub responds with OK.
>
> Hmm.. the debugserver seems to have this behavior as well. Greg, what do you
> think should be the right response to this packet when we have no process
> running? My feeling is that we should just send a "l" packet as if we have
> just reached the end of the list. What do you think?
Response from the target is "$#00". I think we should check for
IsUnsupportedResponse().
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12876
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
