labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
lgtm. I think the current behavior of stop hooks with process control commands is so under-defined that it does not make sense to run this test, especially given that we're considering disallowing that altogether. If we wanted to just test that stop hooks do run in the presence of multiple threads, then it should be possible to replace the "continue" command in the hook with something else which e.g. prints a variable. Then we can just check that the variable gets displayed correctly. In D58257#1398766 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58257#1398766>, @jingham wrote: > And we should also add a --continue (maybe also --step & --next) option to > the stop hook. Then we could just disallow step/next/continue in stop hooks. > It is really hard to reason about what to do when handling stops if the > contents of the stop hook can restart the target out from under you. For > instance, if you have multiple stop hooks, you have to abort running all the > other stop hooks after the first one continues. I like that a lot. In fact, I was proposing something very similar when we were discussing this internally. :) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58257/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58257 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
