Jlalond wrote: > I think the tricky part is that (in both cases) the user might legitimately > want to let the process exit, and "continue" is the normal way to do that, so > I don't think we'd want to just error out of the continue command (or from > the vCont packet). I think what we'd want is to make sure that the process > doesn't accidentally exit while running an expression (possibly from within a > data formatter), and for that I guess we'd need to let lldb know that running > expressions is "dangerous". We already have Thread::SafeToCallFunctions, even > though it's used for a slightly different purpose, but maybe it could be > extended to handle this as well?
I think disallowing any non explicit continues/disconnect is a good user experience as long as we display an appropriate message. The workflow I imagine is when halted in this state any explicit `continue` or `disconnect` should just kill the process, but something like `p MyVar.Size()` should not. > We already have one piece of "status" parsing code in > source/Host/linux/Host.cpp. I think it'd be better to reuse that one. I'm > slightly torn as to whether reuse Host::GetProcessInfo for this (and add a > new field to ProcessInstanceInfo -- or possibly expand on IsZombie), or > whether to create a new linux-specific entry point which will return this > data. Will refactor, I looked for something for status and it seems I missed something https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137041 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
