labath added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17724#364450, @clayborg wrote:
> As long as both long and short options are still supported? Can you still > type any of: > > - --arch=x86_64 > - --arch x86_64 > - -arch=x86_64 > - -arch x86_64 > - -ax86_64 > - -a x86_64 All the variants work (including -a=x86_64) **except** the "-ax86_64" version. Not sure if it's that important to maintain this one. > Are we able to track which options can be used with other options with the > llvm solution? I didn't look too close. There were bits in the old option > definitions which defined with options could be specified with which other > options. These bits were there, but they weren't used for any verification purposes, only for formatting the `--help` output, which I did not find altogether useful anyway, as it has too many options and variants (some of which are wrong). lldb -h lldb -v [[--] <PROGRAM-ARG-1> [<PROGRAM_ARG-2> ...]] lldb -a <arch> -f <filename> [-c <filename>] [-s <filename>] [-o <none>] [-S <filename>] [-O <none>] [-k <none>] [-K <filename>] [-Q] [-b] [-e] [-x] [-X] [-l <script-language>] [-d] [[--] <PROGRAM-ARG-1> [<PROGRAM_ARG-2> ...]] lldb -n <process-name> -w [-s <filename>] [-o <none>] [-S <filename>] [-O <none>] [-k <none>] [-K <filename>] [-Q] [-b] [-e] [-x] [-X] [-l <script-language>] [-d] lldb -p <pid> [-s <filename>] [-o <none>] [-S <filename>] [-O <none>] [-k <none>] [-K <filename>] [-Q] [-b] [-e] [-x] [-X] [-l <script-language>] [-d] lldb -P lldb -r [<none>] -R <none> We can't get llvm to produce this kind of output for us, but we can use "option categories". By default, we have "general" and "generic" categories ( :P ), but I was thinking about adding a "repl" category (for --repl, --repl-language) and a "scripting category" (all --source and --one-line options, --batch, etc.). IMHO, this would help the output readability more than the previous "option sets" variant. This would not help the enforcement of option combinations in a declarative manner, but as we have introspection, it wouldn't be too hard to express "no option from the 'repl' category can be used with other options" with a bit of code. > The other thing that might throw people for a loop is if llvm doesn't support > this style: > > % lldb /bin/ls --arch=x86_64 -- -lAF This works as expected. So, yes, there are tiny regressions, but these are not important IMO, and I think this makes a nice code simplification. However, if I'm not interested in shoving this in if people don't approve, so... let me know what you think http://reviews.llvm.org/D17724 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
