[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D126614: [lldb] [gdb-remote] Client support for using the non-stop protocol

[Pavel Labath via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

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