mgorny added a comment. In D128893#3647663 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128893#3647663>, @labath wrote:
> In D128893#3621673 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128893#3621673>, @mgorny wrote: > >> FYI, I don't feel very strongly about this. If you really dislike adding >> `m_inhibit_stop_reason_processes`, I suppose we could alternatively just >> declare disabling non-stop as unsupported and error out. > > The problem is I "really disliked" the vKill part as well. I didn't want to > make a big deal out of it, as I though it was an isolated use case, but now > it seems like this may be a regular occurrence. > > I think things would look better if we at least grouped all of the various > bits of information about a single process. So, instead of three maps, we > would have a single map, whose values would contain the process pointer, and > any other state data we need. That could be a flag (whether the process is > being killed), or maybe a callback (specifying the action to perform when the > process stops). WDYT? I suppose that makes sense. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128893/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128893 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
