On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:32 PM Jim Ingham via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
> jingham added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39436#911304, @hintonda wrote: > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39436#911274, @jingham wrote: > > > > > BTW, to Z's comment: you can't really resolve the regex pattern when > you make the breakpoint. What if another library gets loaded later on, > which has source files that match the source file pattern the user entered, > and have source code that matches the -p pattern. The breakpoint should be > updated to encompass those new locations, but you can't do that if you've > already matched the pattern against the original list of files, and then > thrown away the pattern. > > > > > > Isn't this how it already works with all breakpoints? If you load more > modules, do more locations get automatically loaded? Sorry if that's a > dumb question. > > > That's how it should work. Zachary was suggesting (though I don't think > he is anymore) taking the pattern in as an argument, but then matching it > against the files that matched the pattern at the time the breakpoint was > set. That is NOT - as you correctly state - the way breakpoints are > supposed to work. So if we want to make this a pattern, we have to store > the pattern. At least not as part of the lldb command. But the more i hear, the more I’m starting to think we should just do nothing in lldb, and let all the logic for this live in the clangdiag python script
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
