jingham marked 2 inline comments as done.
jingham added a comment.
Pavel, I think the new behavior w.r.t. launching is better. When the process
plugins are managing events to handle a launch or attach, they really don't
want random stop hooks getting in their way. On MacOS, if you set a stop hook
before launch you always got one stop message at a place you didn't cause the
target to stop, which I think was just confusing.
================
Comment at: lit/ExecControl/StopHook/stop-hook-threads.test:36
# When we don't filter, we expect to count 12 stopped threads in the thread
list output
-# CHECK-NO-FILTER-COUNT-12: at stop-hook-threads.cpp{{.*}} stop reason =
breakpoint
\ No newline at end of file
+# CHECK-NO-FILTER-COUNT-12: , stop reason = breakpoint 3.1
----------------
labath wrote:
> BTW, this check is fairly dodgy, because in the case of two threads hitting a
> breakpoint simultaneously, we will get 4 stop reasons instead of two ("thread
> list" will be executed twice, and each instance will print the stop reason
> for both threads). It might be better to replace "thread list" with a
> different command, or add synchronization to the test to prevent two threads
> from hitting the breakpoint at once, depending on what we want to test.
Yes, trying to make a good test scraping thread list output is no good.
Instead I made the stop-hook set a variable in the target. Then we can just
check that value to see if we hit and ran the stop hooks the right number of
times.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58394/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58394
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
