Thank you all for the information. On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 29, 2016, at 2:57 AM, Ravitheja Addepally via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > I wanted to know if the remote protocol of LLDB is state less or > not ? When i say state I am referring to if LLDB remembers the current > process or thread being debugged (which would mean we dont need to specify > that in the client to server packets ) . I was looking at the > GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS and found that most of the packets did not > have the pid or thread id being passed to the server , so is it safe to > assume that the protocol is statefull ? > > Yes. There is the notion that you have one process that may or may not be > there when you connect. When and if a process does exist, it assumes it > won't change. Threads can be selected and many packets operate of the > current thread. We have also added new packets to allow us to append a > thread ID suffix to existing packets, like reading and writing registers. > This allows us to save a packet round trip so we don't always have to say > "set thread to thread 123" and then "read register 12". > > > is this assumption also valid for all OS's ? > > Yep. Very stateful. > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
