labath added a comment. I believe we should at least print/notify about the fact that the process has received a SIGCONT (like we do with SIGCHLD, which happens a lot more often). As for stopping, I don't really have a strong opinion.
One reason for keeping the existing behavior would be compatibility with gdb, but that's about all I can think of. The obvious use case for wanting to stop on SIGCONT is when you want to debug the job control behavior of some process -- e.g., vi (and even lldb) refreshes some state whenever it comes back from suspension. But this is not not something that comes up very often, I would expect. Another possibility would be to try to detect these "useless" SIGCONTs and ignore them specifically (or just ignore SIGCONTs for the processes that are likely to receive them). I believe we had a patch for SIGSEGV and android like that at some point (i can't find a trace of it in the source, so I guess it did not land). OTOH, SIGSEGVs are not nearly as important as SIGCONT, so maybe a blanket ignore on the signal would be ok.... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D89019/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D89019 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
