jingham added a comment. In D74136#1871751 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#1871751>, @labath wrote:
> In D74136#1870029 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#1870029>, @jingham wrote: > > > In D74136#1869622 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#1869622>, @kwk wrote: > > > > > @labath @jingham to summarize from what I read here and what I chatted > > > about with @labath , the following is a possible way to go for now, > > > right? > > > > > > 1. We're not going to introduce my flag. > > > 2. You're both not perfectly happy with the way things are documented at > > > the moment and dislike some of the implementation as in in LLDB but > > > chaning it should not be part of this patch. > > > 3. @jingham wouldn't want to introduce `--compile-unit` as a flag that > > > @labath proposed. > > > 4. You want `breakpoint set --file` to search everything, that is to say > > > compilation units and files referenced in `DW_AT_decl_file`. > > > > > > If you can confirm that this is correct, then I can refactor this patch > > > to remove the switch and change the default behavior for `breakpoint set > > > --file`. Especially point 4. is important I guess. > > > > > > There's a point (5) which is that the search in 4 should be conditioned on > > the setting of the "target.inline-breakpoint-strategy". That way if people > > have big projects but don't ever #include source files, and don't build > > with LTO, they can turn off these extra searches, which might end up being > > costly and to no purpose for them. > > > I think we're on the same page, but I'll just try to rephrase this in my own > words. > > Basically, I'm hoping that we could get the `--file+--function` combo to > behave the same way `--file+--line`. I.e., that the --file argument should > specify the file that the function is defined in (i.e. the DW_AT_decl_file > attribute of the function), and not the compile unit (DW_AT_name of the > compile unit containing the function). The way the > `inline-breakpoint-strategy` setting comes into play is that if the setting > value is "headers" and the user specifies a `.cpp` file, then we will assume > that the .cpp file also matches the name of one of the compile units, and we > will not attempt to search compile units with different names (which is the > same thing we do for line breakpoints, I believe). That is my understanding as well. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
