jimingham wrote: Give me a bit to look at this. The intention of this patch was just to add more locations, it shouldn't be reducing the number of breakpoints. There's likely some simple goof here.
Jim > On Nov 4, 2024, at 2:44 AM, Pavel Labath ***@***.***> wrote: > > > So it sounds like the problem is that lldb no longer looks for all compile > units with the given name when setting a breakpoint. Changing that doesn't > seem like it was the intention of this patch. Jim, is there an easy fix for > this or should we revert the patch for now? > > — > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158#issuecomment-2454373743>, > or unsubscribe > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUPVW3EAWSSOK7BI5AW6ZDZ65FYTAVCNFSM6AAAAABQ27K63WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDINJUGM3TGNZUGM>. > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114158 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
