labath marked an inline comment as done. labath added a comment. In D74136#2085076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#2085076>, @kwk wrote:
> IMPORTANT: The behavior of `target.inline-breakpoint-strategy` when set to > `headers` is still subject to change! > > I think the setting is not respected correctly... Yes. I'm guessing you also need a call to `FileSpec::IsSourceImplementationFile` somewhere. The logic should be different only if `target.inline-breakpoint-strategy` is`headers` AND `FileSpec::IsSourceImplementationFile` is true. To Jim: I'm still unable to decide whether we really should be respecting the inline-breakpoint-strategy setting or not in this case. I mean, this is an optimization for setting file+line breakpoints, but in this case it does not buy us anything, since we search for the functions by name. OTOH, it is nice to have a consistent treatment of the `--file` argument to `breakpoint set`... ================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/Breakpoint/search-support-files.test:77-80 +settings set target.inline-breakpoint-strategy headers +breakpoint set -n function_in_header -f search-support-files.h +# CHECK: (lldb) breakpoint set -n function_in_header -f search-support-files.h +# CHECK-NEXT: Breakpoint 10: no locations (pending). ---------------- The function in a .h file should be found regardless of the value of the setting. ================ Comment at: lldb/test/Shell/Breakpoint/search-support-files.test:88-91 +settings set target.inline-breakpoint-strategy headers +breakpoint set -n func -f search-support-files-func.cpp +# CHECK: (lldb) breakpoint set -n func -f search-support-files-func.cpp +# CHECK-NEXT: Breakpoint 12: no locations (pending). ---------------- This is right. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
