I'll add tests if it looks like it'll be accepted, but based on the initial response, that doesn't seem likely.
However, it was a good exercise and addressed the issues raised. thanks again for all the feedback... don On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote: > Asking again, but why can’t this be done in th the script for clangdiag? > For example, there’s no tests for any of this in this patch. And it seems > likely that it will be rarely used anyway. So I’m still not convinced the > option-pollution and increased long term code maintenance burden of this > underutilized codepath is worth the benefit. > > Can you see if manually scanning for these files in python and then > setting breakpoints on the right set of files solves the problem? > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:00 PM Don Hinton via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > >> hintonda updated this revision to Diff 120933. >> hintonda added a comment. >> >> - Remove prefix and add options. >> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D39436 >> >> Files: >> include/lldb/Utility/FileSpec.h >> source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp >> source/Utility/FileSpec.cpp >> >>
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
