jingham added a comment. In D74136#1869622 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#1869622>, @kwk wrote:
> @labath @jingham to summarize from what I read here and what I chatted about > with @labath , the following is a possible way to go for now, right? > > 1. We're not going to introduce my flag. > 2. You're both not perfectly happy with the way things are documented at the > moment and dislike some of the implementation as in in LLDB but chaning it > should not be part of this patch. > 3. @jingham wouldn't want to introduce `--compile-unit` as a flag that > @labath proposed. > 4. You want `breakpoint set --file` to search everything, that is to say > compilation units and files referenced in `DW_AT_decl_file`. > > If you can confirm that this is correct, then I can refactor this patch to > remove the switch and change the default behavior for `breakpoint set > --file`. Especially point 4. is important I guess. There's a point (5) which is that the search in 4 should be conditioned on the setting of the "target.inline-breakpoint-strategy". That way if people have big projects but don't ever #include source files, and don't build with LTO, they can turn off these extra searches, which might end up being costly and to no purpose for them. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
