JDevlieghere added a comment.
This is in line with the existing ways of sourcing init files in LLDB and has
all the things we discussed in the RFC. I left few nits but this all looks good
to me. I'll hold off on accepting so it continues to show up in the other
reviewer's queue.
================
Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.h:256
void SourceInitFileHome(CommandReturnObject &result, bool is_repl);
+ void SourceSystemInitFile(CommandReturnObject &result);
----------------
`SourceInitFileSystem` for consistency with the other two? Or maybe you were
planning to change the other two in another patch?
================
Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBCommandInterpreter.cpp:420-422
+void SBCommandInterpreter::SourceSystemInitFile(SBCommandReturnObject &result)
{
+ LLDB_INSTRUMENT_VA(this, result);
+ result.Clear();
----------------
Nit: all the other functions //should// have a newline because that's what
`lldb-instr` generates.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.cpp:2385-2393
+#ifdef LLDB_SYSTEM_INIT_PATH
+ FileSpec init_file(LLDB_SYSTEM_INIT_PATH);
+ if (init_file) {
+ init_file.MakeAbsolute(HostInfo::GetShlibDir());
+ }
+
+ SourceInitFile(init_file, result);
----------------
Why not put the ifdef around the `m_skip_lldbinit_files` check?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119831/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119831
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
