> On Jan 15, 2015, at 4:18 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > > Which is unfortunate, because it seems to be needed even for basic stepping > to work, like step over. Originally I was just trying to implement stepping, > and that's how I ran into this issue. So that brings me to a related > question. Why is step over as complicated as it is? It seems to me like > step over can be implemented by disassembling 1 opcode, adding the size of > the opcode to the current pc, and having the ThreadPlan::ShouldStop always > return false unless the pc is equal to old_pc + size_of_opcode. >
You are describing "thread step-inst". That should pretty much always work regardless of unwinder, etc. Source step over, as Jason said, is much more complicated. Jim _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
