> On Jul 21, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Jim Ingham via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > When we were first devising commands for lldb, we tried to be really > parsimonious with the one & two letter unique command strings that lldb ships > with by default. I was trying to leave us as much flexibility as possible as > we evolved, and I also wanted to make sure we weren’t taking up all the > convenient short commands, leaving a cramped space for user aliases. > > The _regex_break command was added (and aliased by default to ‘b’) as a way > to allow quick access for various common breakpoint setting options. However > it suffers from the problem that you can only provide the options that are > recognized by the _regexp_break command aliases. For instance, you can’t add > the -h option to make a hardware breakpoint. Because the “_regex_break > command works by passing the command through a series of regex’s stopping at > the first match, trying to extend the regular expressions to also include > “anything else” while not causing one regex to claim a command that was > really meant for a regex further on in the series is really tricky. > > That makes it kind of a wall for people. As soon as you need to do anything > it doesn’t support you have to go to a command that is not known to you > (since “b” isn’t related to “break set” in any way that a normal user can > actually see.) > > However, lldb has been around for a while and we only have two unique > commands of the form “b[A-Za-z]” in the current lldb command set (br and bt). > So I think it would be okay for us to take up a few more second letter > commands to make setting breakpoints more convenient. I think adding: > > bs (break source) -> break set -y
Is -y a new option you would add? I don't see it. We have --file and --line > ba (break address) -> break set -a > bn (break name) -> break set -n > > would provide a convenient way to set the most common classes of breakpoints > while not precluding access to all the other options available to “break > set”. We could still leave “b” by itself for the _regex_break command - > people who’ve figured out it’s intricacies shouldn’t lose their investment. > This would be purely additive. > > What do people think? Can we modify the _regex_break to accept options at the start or end of the command somehow? > Jim > > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
