ZequanWu 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.
I find this is tricky because all the flags for data formatters are set with `TypeSummaryImpl::Flags` which is a 4 byte unsigned integer. I could add a new unsigned integer in `TypeSummaryImpl` for that. But for users who use SBAPI to create formatters, they need to do something like `CreateWithSummaryString(..., options)` and then `SetPointerMatchDepth(depth)` to specify the pointer match depth because we cannot break the existing `CreateWithSummaryString` APIs. That looks not desired, or maybe not that bad. What do you think? 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
