JDevlieghere added a comment. This is in line with the existing ways of sourcing init files in LLDB and has all the things we discussed in the RFC. I left few nits but this all looks good to me. I'll hold off on accepting so it continues to show up in the other reviewer's queue.
================ Comment at: lldb/include/lldb/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.h:256 void SourceInitFileHome(CommandReturnObject &result, bool is_repl); + void SourceSystemInitFile(CommandReturnObject &result); ---------------- `SourceInitFileSystem` for consistency with the other two? Or maybe you were planning to change the other two in another patch? ================ Comment at: lldb/source/API/SBCommandInterpreter.cpp:420-422 +void SBCommandInterpreter::SourceSystemInitFile(SBCommandReturnObject &result) { + LLDB_INSTRUMENT_VA(this, result); + result.Clear(); ---------------- Nit: all the other functions //should// have a newline because that's what `lldb-instr` generates. ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Interpreter/CommandInterpreter.cpp:2385-2393 +#ifdef LLDB_SYSTEM_INIT_PATH + FileSpec init_file(LLDB_SYSTEM_INIT_PATH); + if (init_file) { + init_file.MakeAbsolute(HostInfo::GetShlibDir()); + } + + SourceInitFile(init_file, result); ---------------- Why not put the ifdef around the `m_skip_lldbinit_files` check? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119831/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119831 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits