On Wed, 2022-01-12 at 13:28 +0100, Pavel Labath wrote:
>
> This wouldn't solve the problem of writing to the siginfo struct, but I
> am not sure if this is a use case Michał is actually trying to solve
> right now (?) If it is then, maybe this could be done through a separate
> command, as we currently lack the ability to resume a process/thread
> with a specific signal ("process signal" does something slightly
> different). It could either be brand new command, or integrated into the
> existing process/thread continue commands. (thread continue --signal
> SIGFOO => "continue with SIGFOO"; thread continue --siginfo $47 =>
> continue with siginfo in $47 ???)
Yeah, writing is not very important to me right now. I think it's
rather uncommon for people to override siginfo.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
