[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D39436: Add regex support to file (-f) and module (-s) breakpoint options.

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

This is a case where I think a new API *would* be warranted.  But it would
not be an API specifically for the -m option.  It would instead be an API
that introduces an `SBBreakpointOptions` class, and then add a method
called `BreakpointCreateWithOptions(options)`.

Note that the general policy of the SB API is that you cannot delete or
modify an existing method.  This kind of pattern provides an API that *can*
be extended in the future, because you could, for example, add fields to
SBBreakpointOptions and existing code wouldn't break, but new code could
take advantage of the new options.

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:32 AM Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote:

> Btw, is there a way to pass the '-m' option via the SB API?  I'd like to
> exclude matches in comments when using BreakpointCreateBySourceRegex.
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 8:12 AM Don Hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There have been a few suggestions that I could just use a script to
>>>> solve this "problem" -- poor startup performance of clangdiag.
>>>>
>>>> However, this patch was not submitted to solve a particular problem.
>>>> It was submitted in response to Jim's suggestion:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Jim Ingham <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, that would be easy to implement from the command line, maybe add
>>>>> a --file-is-regex flag or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the SB API it would be better to have something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> SBFileList SBTarget.GetFileListMatchingRegex("regex")
>>>>>
>>>>> Please file an enhancement request for these of hack'em in if you're
>>>>> so motivated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> clangdiag was only provided as a motivating example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fair point, I had forgotten about that.  That said, I'm honestly still
>>> not that big of a fan.   It's no secret that I have a higher bar than
>>> others for options and API additions, but to me the potential use this
>>> particular option + SB API would get is not sufficient to justify the long
>>> term maintenance burden associated with having it.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not that familiar with the SB API part, but will investigate, and try
>> to come up with a better motivation.
>>
>> Thanks again for the suggestions and feedback...
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20171031/6ccd4e76/attachment.html>