One important question: what do you mean talking about "block"? Does it mean that SBTarget::Launch blocks the process and the user can't continue working with this process until it stops?
сб, 11 авг. 2018 г. в 2:41, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com>: > I was wondering how this worked in the regular SBAPI that we use for all > the "normal" python-based LLDB tests. The implementation of > SBProcess::Continue() for example calls Process::Resume() or > Process::ResumeSynchronous() depending on whether synchronous mode is set > or not. > It's not immediately obvious to me whether -exec-run should wait until the > process stopped before returning or whether -exec-step should wait until > the process stopped before executing. > > Based on a cursory reading of the sources it seems like SBTarget::Launch > should block until the process stopped when it is in synchronous mode. Can > you confirm this? If that is the case, can you figure out why -exec-run > does not inherit this behavior? > > -- adrian > > > On Aug 10, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Александр Поляков <polyakov....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > AFAIK, there is no mechanism in lldb-mi to distinguish a command that > expects a frame, so we need to modify each command manually. Am I right? > > If so, I found the Process::WaitForProcessToStop method which we can add > to SB API and use in lldb-mi. > > > > сб, 11 авг. 2018 г. в 0:50, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com>: > > [adding lldb-dev back to the conversation] > > > > > On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Александр Поляков < > polyakov....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I didn't check this yet. lldb-mi already runs LIT test in the > --synchronous mode and the tests keep failing. > > >> > > > > > > Yes, that's why I said this: > > > > > > > > >>> пт, 10 авг. 2018 г. в 23:57, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com>: > > >>> > > >>> Before we continue to discuss -wait-for-breakpoint; where you > actually able to verify my suspicion that that is what is happening on the > bots? Fred suggested to me offline today that in synchronous mode, perhaps > -exec-* should be waiting for the process to be stopped, which would also > sound like a reasonable and less invasive solution to the problem. > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > Instead of adding a new command to wait for the process to be stopped > we might be able to just wait for the process to be stopped if in > synchronous mode and we are running any commands that expect a frame (such > as -exec-*). > > > > > > -- adrian > > > > > > > > -- > > Alexander > > -- Alexander
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
