jimingham wrote: > > I'd rather keep the flexibility, if you don't mind doing the work to add > > that. For now, it seems okay for the current libc++/libstdc++ ones to > > declare what they support (which is 1 pointer depth). If someone has a > > reason to come back and extend these ones in the future, that's fine but a > > separate piece of work. > > After rethinking about the option, it will cause some compatibility issues. > Currently, --skip-pointers is boolean option and python formatters use the > flag lldb.eTypeOptionSkipPointers to disable/enable it. If we switch it to > accept a numeric number, we probably need a new SBAPI to specify the > parameter, and this will break existing users who use the > `lldb.eTypeOptionSkipPointers` flag.
`type summary add` and friends don't have that many options. Adding a "pointer matching depth" option, and having --skip-pointers and `--pointer-match-depth` be in separate option groups so you can't accidentally provide them together would also work. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124048 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
