jasonmolenda wrote: Just to be clear, if I'm understanding the packet we'll be getting back, we have no indication that we hit the breakpoint, we only show that we are stopped at an address which has a breakpoint. Current lldb stepping behavior will work -- because the rule is, when we stop at a breakpoint address, we will say we hit the breakpoint. I am refining a patch https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96260 which changes this behavior -- we handle "instruction stepped / stopped at a breakpoint" differently than "hit a breakpoint". I worry this difference will be lost with a stub that reports `swbreak`/`hwbreak`, stepping won't work correctly, and we won't capture it in the testsuite or on any of our CI bots.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102873 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
