JDevlieghere wrote: Thanks for the context. My initial concern, which sounds validated by your explanation, is that in the most degenerate case, we may hit each breakpoint individually and do no batching at all. In other words, the test would still need to pass if no batching is happening at all so it would pass without the original change as well.
I think this plus the GDB remote test case where we spoof the packets and confirm that we've actually batched all 10 would give us the coverage we're looking for. The latter would fail without the batching, and this one may uncover other issues when talking to a real stub, albeit without necessarily enforcing that any batching has happened. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/182415 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
