jingham added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/Options.td:232 + Desc<"Delete all breakpoints which are currently disabled. When using the disabled option " + "any breakpoints listed on the command line are EXCLUDED from deletion.">; } ---------------- kastiglione wrote: > jingham wrote: > > kastiglione wrote: > > > jingham wrote: > > > > kastiglione wrote: > > > > > To me, it's counter intuitive that `break delete --disabled 1` will > > > > > not delete bp 1. > > > > The combination: > > > > > > > > (lldb) break delete --disabled 1 > > > > > > > > could either mean > > > > > > > > 1) delete all breakpoints that are disabled AND breakpoint 1 > > > > 2) delete all breakpoints that are disabled EXCEPT breakpoint 1 > > > > 3) an error > > > > > > > > Of those interpretations, 1 and 3 don't seem very useful, but 2 does. > > > > > > > > This is particularly handy when you specify a breakpoint name, not a > > > > breakpoint. Just make breakpoints you don't want deleted DoNotDelete, > > > > then you can easily protect all those breakpoints. > > > > > > > > Note, your workaround would only be useful in this case if all the > > > > breakpoints named DoNotDelete are currently disabled. Otherwise you > > > > would have to remember which of the DoNotDelete breakpoints were > > > > disabled, enable them all, do the `delete --disabled` then only > > > > re-disable those that were originally disabled. Whereas if you can > > > > pass an exclude list you can just protect those breakpoints > > > > unconditionally regardless of their state. > > > > > > > > So while I agree this is a little odd, it's actually the only option > > > > that really makes sense, it's easy to document, and I don't think it's > > > > likely to cause mistakes. > > > why does the first interpretation not seem useful? If I'm deleting > > > breakpoints, I might want to delete both disabled breakpoints and one or > > > more specific breakpoints. To do that I would probably intuitively write > > > `break delete --disabled OthersToDelete`. > > > > > > Could the ambiguity be removed by adding another flag? `break delete > > > --disabled --except DoNotDelete`? > > To me "delete --disabled" is a bulk operation acting on a class of > > breakpoints. "This class plus one random other one" seems odd to me. > > > > A bulk operation with exclusions makes much more sense to me. > > > > Adding another option complicates things without adding much value, and > > becomes annoying if you want to specify more than one excluded thing. It > > would be easy to make the mistake: > > > > (lldb) break disable --disabled --except 1 2 > > > > intending to preserve 2 but in fact deleting it. > I get that exclusions are useful, my concern is that the command "breakpoint > delete" doesn't delete what you give it. If `break delete foo` deletes foo, > then on the surface `break delete --disabled foo` should also delete foo. The > flag does what it says, but also silently inverts the meaning of the > positional args. The help for the option explicitly says that it inverts the meaning of the positional args, there's nothing silent about it. You wouldn't accidentally say `break delete --disabled`, so presumably you would have to have read the help for the option, which I don't think is susceptible to misconstruction. Because of that, I'm not too bothered that `break delete --disabled Foo` behaves differently from `break delete Foo`. And it seems the simplest way to express the most useful thing you would want to add to just`break delete --disable`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88129/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88129 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
