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 lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev