There is a standard for reverse stepping where the GDB remote protocol was extended to do the reverse stepping. See:
https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Packets.html <https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Packets.html> Look for "reverse" in the text. They added "bc" for reverse continue and "bs" for reverse step. We should be using these if possible. > On Aug 23, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Ted Woodward <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Perhaps a manual packet that tells your remote server that the next “s” > packet is a reverse step, then run the lldb command “si”. > > It would be simpler, from a packet log analysis standpoint, if you weren’t > stopped at a breakpoint location when you did this. > > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a > Linux Foundation Collaborative Project > > From: lldb-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > Clayton via lldb-dev > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:20 PM > To: Vadim Chugunov <[email protected]> > Cc: LLDB <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] Forcing lldb to refresh process state > > You need to send some sort of continue through the GDB remote interface. The > only way to get a $T packet back is in response to a "?" packet or to a > "vCont" or other continue or step packet. > >> On Aug 22, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Vadim Chugunov <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> It does send '$T05...' in response, but it looks like lldb does not analyze >> responses to manually sent packets. >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Greg Clayton <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> If you do a reverse step it actually should send a process resumed and a >>> process stopped event. >>> >>> > On Aug 18, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Vadim via lldb-dev <[email protected] >>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm trying to reverse-step. So I think I'd need to refresh all thread >>> > states? >>> > >>> >> On Aug 18, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Jim Ingham <[email protected] >>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> No, there hasn't been a need for this. >>> >> >>> >> What commands are you planning to send? Or equivalently, how much state >>> >> are you expecting to change? >>> >> >>> >> Jim >>> >> >>> >>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Vadim Chugunov via lldb-dev >>> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is there any way to force lldb to refresh it's internal record of >>> >>> debuggee process state (as if it had just received a stop event)? I >>> >>> want to send a custom command to remote gdb process stub (via `process >>> >>> plugin packet send`). This works, but if the command alters debuggee >>> >>> state, lldb won't know about it. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> lldb-dev mailing list >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> >>> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev> >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev>
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
