> On Jul 21, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Greg Clayton <clayb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 21, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Jim Ingham via lldb-dev >> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> When we were first devising commands for lldb, we tried to be really >> parsimonious with the one & two letter unique command strings that lldb >> ships with by default. I was trying to leave us as much flexibility as >> possible as we evolved, and I also wanted to make sure we weren’t taking up >> all the convenient short commands, leaving a cramped space for user aliases. >> >> The _regex_break command was added (and aliased by default to ‘b’) as a way >> to allow quick access for various common breakpoint setting options. >> However it suffers from the problem that you can only provide the options >> that are recognized by the _regexp_break command aliases. For instance, you >> can’t add the -h option to make a hardware breakpoint. Because the >> “_regex_break command works by passing the command through a series of >> regex’s stopping at the first match, trying to extend the regular >> expressions to also include “anything else” while not causing one regex to >> claim a command that was really meant for a regex further on in the series >> is really tricky. >> >> That makes it kind of a wall for people. As soon as you need to do anything >> it doesn’t support you have to go to a command that is not known to you >> (since “b” isn’t related to “break set” in any way that a normal user can >> actually see.) >> >> However, lldb has been around for a while and we only have two unique >> commands of the form “b[A-Za-z]” in the current lldb command set (br and >> bt). So I think it would be okay for us to take up a few more second letter >> commands to make setting breakpoints more convenient. I think adding: >> >> bs (break source) -> break set -y > > Is -y a new option you would add? I don't see it. We have --file and --line
Added it yesterday. > >> ba (break address) -> break set -a >> bn (break name) -> break set -n >> >> would provide a convenient way to set the most common classes of breakpoints >> while not precluding access to all the other options available to “break >> set”. We could still leave “b” by itself for the _regex_break command - >> people who’ve figured out it’s intricacies shouldn’t lose their investment. >> This would be purely additive. >> >> What do people think? > > Can we modify the _regex_break to accept options at the start or end of the > command somehow? > When the principle of so much of the rest of the lldb command line is that this sort of positional ordering is NOT necessary, doing this would be a shame. At that point, I think Jonas suggestion of having a command “break break-spec-set” or whatever, that took the breakpoint modify option group and then a specifier as an argument(s) which get parsed in the same way that “_regexp_break” does would be a better long-term supportable option. Jim > > >> Jim >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev>
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
