mgorny added a comment.
In D98482#2640981 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98482#2640981>, @labath wrote:
> This should be fine, assuming the following statement is true: "all thread
> id's that we're passing from server to client are in the form of some
> lldb-specific extension to the gdb-remote protocol". If that is not the case,
> then we should also update the client to work with the new format.
That statement is somewhat confusing. Do I understand correctly that I should
update the client to handle process IDs in all the places where GDB protocol
permits server to send PIDs? I suppose that makes sense.
================
Comment at: lldb/unittests/Utility/StringExtractorGDBRemoteTest.cpp:142-145
+ ex.Reset("p-1.1234");
+ EXPECT_THAT(
+ ex.GetPidTid(100).getValue(),
+ ::testing::Pair(StringExtractorGDBRemote::AllProcesses, 0x1234ULL));
----------------
labath wrote:
> IIRC gdb docs say this is invalid, so I'd reject it immediately at this level.
Will do.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98482/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98482
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
