================
@@ -1363,6 +1374,43 @@ Status ProcessGDBRemote::DoResume() {
}
}
+ if (direction == RunDirection::eRunReverse && continue_packet_error) {
+ if (num_continue_C_tids > 0 || num_continue_S_tids > 0) {
+ error.SetErrorString("can't deliver signals while running in reverse");
+ LLDB_LOGF(log, "ProcessGDBRemote::DoResumeReverse: Signals not
supported");
+ return error;
+ }
+
+ if (num_continue_s_tids > 0) {
+ if (num_continue_s_tids > 1) {
+ error.SetErrorString("can't step multiple threads while
reverse-stepping");
+ LLDB_LOGF(log, "ProcessGDBRemote::DoResumeReverse: can't step
multiple threads");
+ return error;
+ }
+
+ if (!m_gdb_comm.GetReverseStepSupported()) {
+ error.SetErrorString("target does not support reverse-stepping");
+ LLDB_LOGF(log, "ProcessGDBRemote::DoResumeReverse: target does not
support reverse-stepping");
+ return error;
+ }
+
+ m_gdb_comm.SetCurrentThreadForRun(m_continue_s_tids.front());
+ continue_packet.PutCString("bs");
+ } else {
+ if (!m_gdb_comm.GetReverseContinueSupported()) {
----------------
rocallahan wrote:
We need to determine whether we're going to step or continue first, so we can
check whether the specific packet (`bs` or `bc`) we need is supported. I
suppose we could collapse them into one feature flag and check that flag a bit
earlier --- that would work fine in practice --- but I think what I have here,
with a feature flag check right where we use that exact feature, is a little
more intuitive. I think the priority here should be the simplest, clearest
code; "user tries to reverse-continue but that's not supported" is not a case
that needs to be optimized.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99736
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
