labath added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/gdb-remote/GDBRemoteClientBase.cpp:138 + // and then drain the notification queue + // TODO: issue vCont;t to ensure that all threads have actually stopped + // (this is not needed for LLGS but for gdbserver) ---------------- mgorny wrote: > labath wrote: > > Could we just send vCont;t to begin with? (I know this was discussed > > already, but that was before we switched to the new interruption mechanism) > I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking about. The `vCont;t` part > is split into D129554 since it involves some finicky logic because we can't > predict if we're going to get any notifications or not. Nevermind, it's me who is not understanding things. I forgot about what's the problem with vCont;t (serves me right for not reviewing on time). I guess my point was that we may be able to ignore the vCtrlC part, and immediately start off with a vCont;t (and then do the wait-until-everything-stops dance), but we can leave that for the other patch. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126614/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126614 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
