That seems fine for now. Note, if you use the OptionGroupOptions way of defining the new options for your command, then you can call OptionsSeen to tell you which options were actually provided by the user, so for extra credit, if --compile-unit-only is true and no other options were provided, you can set the other options to the correct values, and ditto when --compile-unit-only is false. That way for now you would only have to provide --compile-unit-only, and the others would be set to the supported combo, but if they provided an unsupported combo you could report the error appropriately.
You can also get the same effect in the table driven way of defining options by just manually marking which options have been seen in your command's SetOptionValue (just remember to clear this info in the OptionParsingStarting method. Jim > On Dec 16, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Dawn Perchik <dawn+l...@burble.org> wrote: > > dawn added a comment. > > I'm only going to support the combinations: > > --compile-unit-only true --only-explicit-matches false --show-raw true > --compile-unit-only false --only-explicit-matches true --show-raw false > > OK? > > > Repository: > rL LLVM > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D15593 > > > _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
