Commit ec10aae
authored
[debugging.utility] Clarify wording in notes
The previous wording in the notes in `breakpoint` and `is_debugger_present`
read as statements of fact about the implementation-defined behaviour.
The statements are actually ones of intent.
The specific claim in `breakpoint` that the debugger resumes execution of the program
as if the function was not invoked is confusing considering that the debugger may effect
side-effects or cause execution to resume from a different evaluation.
Instead, the idea is that `breakpoint` is not responsible for causing the translation process
to make special accomodations for resumption of execution other than in cases
where the debugger was strictly used for observation only.
In `is_debugger_present`, the functionality ascribed to POSIX by the wording
("ptrace") is not present in POSIX. Update to reference the LSB and to use
the corresponding terminology ("tracing process").
The wording implies a preference to return `true` in case it is unknown
whether a debugger is present. Add a critical "only" to fix that.1 parent 4552a92 commit ec10aae
1 file changed
+14
-10
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
2447 | 2447 | | |
2448 | 2448 | | |
2449 | 2449 | | |
2450 | | - | |
2451 | | - | |
2452 | | - | |
2453 | | - | |
| 2450 | + | |
| 2451 | + | |
| 2452 | + | |
| 2453 | + | |
| 2454 | + | |
| 2455 | + | |
| 2456 | + | |
2454 | 2457 | | |
2455 | 2458 | | |
2456 | 2459 | | |
| |||
2486 | 2489 | | |
2487 | 2490 | | |
2488 | 2491 | | |
2489 | | - | |
2490 | | - | |
2491 | | - | |
2492 | | - | |
2493 | | - | |
2494 | | - | |
| 2492 | + | |
| 2493 | + | |
| 2494 | + | |
| 2495 | + | |
| 2496 | + | |
| 2497 | + | |
| 2498 | + | |
2495 | 2499 | | |
2496 | 2500 | | |
2497 | 2501 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments