I'll add tests if it looks like it'll be accepted, but based on the initial
response, that doesn't seem likely.

However, it was a good exercise and addressed the issues raised.

thanks again for all the feedback...
don

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:

> Asking again, but why can’t this be done in th the script for clangdiag?
> For example, there’s no tests for any of this in this patch. And it seems
> likely that it will be rarely used anyway. So I’m still not convinced the
> option-pollution and increased long term code maintenance burden of this
> underutilized codepath is worth the benefit.
>
> Can you see if manually scanning for these files in python and then
> setting breakpoints on the right set of files solves the problem?
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:00 PM Don Hinton via Phabricator <
> revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> hintonda updated this revision to Diff 120933.
>> hintonda added a comment.
>>
>> - Remove prefix and add options.
>>
>>
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D39436
>>
>> Files:
>>   include/lldb/Utility/FileSpec.h
>>   source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp
>>   source/Utility/FileSpec.cpp
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Reply via email to