sirmc added a comment. Yes, I wasn't sure what the exact semantics were for step-inst for LLDB. I think the issue is not mainly the mimicking of GDB behavior, but rather that it is inconvenient for some use-cases.
To give some context on why I propose this change: the current behavior is pretty cumbersome when doing automated testing with LLDB of unknown/ generated programs. For example making use of the Python API, AFAIK, there is no interface where you can run a bounded number of instructions if `lldb.SBThread.StepInstruction` is not guaranteed to return (the current hack around it would be run this in a separate thread with a timeout). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81810/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81810 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
