labath added a comment. In D130045#3678054 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130045#3678054>, @clayborg wrote:
> In D130045#3675738 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130045#3675738>, @labath wrote: > >> In D130045#3666610 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130045#3666610>, @JDevlieghere >> wrote: >> >>> I'm slightly worried about the change to make the new "fuzzy" matching the >>> default. While it makes sense for the breakpoints, I wouldn't generally >>> expect `./a/b/c/main.cpp` to match `/build/a/b/c/main.cpp`, >> >> Would you expect that `main.cpp` "generally" matches `/build/a/b/c/main.cpp`? >> >> (I'm not arguing for/against anything (yet, at least), but I would like to >> hear your reasoning if the answer to the question is "yes".) > > I would say it should match. If FindFileIndex is currently called with a > FileSpec that only has "main.cpp" as the m_filename, then it will fall back > to only matching by filename even if "full = true;". I would expect it to > work the other way around too if we have any files in the file list that are > base name only. Does that make sense? It makes sense to me, but the question was mainly for Jonas -- I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm wondering if he sees a fundamental difference between "`./a/b/c/main.cpp` matching `/build/a/b/c/main.cpp`" and "`main.cpp` matching `/build/a/b/c/main.cpp`". The second I believe is true in the status quo as well. Because I don't see much of a difference -- the former seems like an extension of a general principle of "fuzzy" matching that guides the latter. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130045/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130045 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
