jingham added a comment. I have two questions about this patch.
1. I want some llvm expert to weigh in on whether m_instructions[i]->IsCall() always means it returns to the next instruction after the call. That seems obvious, but since this patch depends on that being true, I'd like to know that it is guaranteed. 2. The reason the test had to change (see Jonas' question) is because before we would step over the breakpoint we were stopped at, then try to get to set the next breakpoint, and when that fails we report the stopped step (since the pc has moved) by presenting our usual stop notification. But the way the branch search goes here, we fail before we do the step-over, and so the PC hasn't moved, and so we don't do the stop listing. I'm not sure whether it is more confusing to get a stop notification when the PC hasn't moved (albeit with an appropriate error) or whether it's more confusing to have two ways the step error could be reported. This is a pretty minor issue and I really can't come down hard one way or the other... If others don't have a strong opinion, its probably fine as is. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58678/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58678 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
