================
@@ -2076,7 +2077,11 @@ bool CommandInterpreter::HandleCommand(const char
*command_line,
}
ElapsedTime elapsed(execute_time);
- cmd_obj->Execute(remainder.c_str(), result);
+ size_t nchar = real_original_command_string.find(remainder);
+ std::optional<uint16_t> pos_in_cmd;
+ if (nchar != std::string::npos)
+ pos_in_cmd = nchar + GetDebugger().GetPrompt().size();
+ cmd_obj->Execute(remainder.c_str(), pos_in_cmd, result);
----------------
medismailben wrote:
> I think expr is probably the only command that is likely to ever echo its
> command string into the output. That's not something most commands would do.
> So this doesn't seem like a feature that should have as much prominence as
> changing the API gives it. I don't want to have to worry about what this
> means when I'm writing a new command, given the answer is almost surely to be
> "not relevant".
I don't have a strong option about this (as long as we don't update all the
`DoExecute` implementations), but I was under the impression that in the
future, some commands could make use of it to point directly to what caused an
error in their invocation. But again, we can have it be part of the expression
for now.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106470
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
