=?utf-8?q?José?= L. Junior <[email protected]>,
=?utf-8?q?José?= L. Junior <[email protected]>,
=?utf-8?q?José?= L. Junior <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <llvm/llvm-project/pull/67019/[email protected]>
================
@@ -38,7 +38,18 @@ Status CommandOptionsProcessLaunch::SetOptionValue(
case 's': // Stop at program entry point
launch_info.GetFlags().Set(eLaunchFlagStopAtEntry);
break;
-
+ case 'm': // Stop at main function
+ {
+ TargetSP target_sp =
+ execution_context ? execution_context->GetTargetSP() : TargetSP();
+ BreakpointSP bp_sp = target_sp->CreateBreakpoint(
+ nullptr, nullptr, "main", eFunctionNameTypeAuto, eLanguageTypeUnknown,
+ 0, eLazyBoolNo, false, false);
----------------
clayborg wrote:
Yes, you are correct, eFunctionNameTypeFull is the right choice.
Jim what do you think about getting the platform involved in setting this
breakpoint as I described? Is that overkill? I am good with either approach.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67019
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
