kwk marked an inline comment as done. kwk added a comment. @labath please see my inline comment.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Breakpoint/BreakpointResolverName.cpp:315 + if (filter_by_cu && filter_by_function) { + // Keep this symbol context if it is a function call to a function + // whose declaration is located in a file that passes. This is needed ---------------- labath wrote: > This mention of a "function call" is confusing. Either a function is in a > file or it isn't. Why do we care about who calls who? @labath we have this `filter_by_function` as an indirection to let `BreakpointResolverName::SearchCallback` know that the `SearchFilter` needs a special handling. But while reviewing the code now I noticed that only the implementations of `SearchFilter::GetFilterRequiredItems` currently either return - `eSymbolContextModule` (for `SearchFilterByModule` and `SearchFilterByModuleList`) or - `eSymbolContextModule | eSymbolContextCompUnit | eSymbolContextFunction` (for `SearchFilterByModuleListAndCU`). I thought this was clever at a time when the old `SearchFilterByModuleListAndCU` which then only returned `eSymbolContextModule | eSymbolContextCompUnit `. With my new search filter I wanted a special handling which is why I wrote a new search filter class and had it return `eSymbolContextModule | eSymbolContextCompUnit | eSymbolContextFunction`. But when you confirmed my question to change the default behavior (https://reviews.llvm.org/D74136#1869622), the new class became the default implementation and there no longer is a need to distinguish the required items for this search filter. Makes sense? 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