[Lldb-commits] [lldb] Reapply PR/87550 (again) (PR #95571)

[Pavel Labath via lldb-commits]

================
@@ -65,16 +58,67 @@ DAP::DAP()
 
 DAP::~DAP() = default;
 
+void DAP::PopulateExceptionBreakpoints() {
+  llvm::call_once(initExceptionBreakpoints, [this]() {
+    exception_breakpoints = std::vector<ExceptionBreakpoint> {};
+    
+    if (lldb::SBDebugger::SupportsLanguage(lldb::eLanguageTypeC_plus_plus)) {
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("cpp_catch", "C++ Catch",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeC_plus_plus);
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("cpp_throw", "C++ Throw",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeC_plus_plus);
+    }
+    if (lldb::SBDebugger::SupportsLanguage(lldb::eLanguageTypeObjC)) {
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("objc_catch", "Objective-C Catch",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeObjC);
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("objc_throw", "Objective-C Throw",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeObjC);
+    }
+    if (lldb::SBDebugger::SupportsLanguage(lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift)) {
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("swift_catch", "Swift Catch",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift);
+      exception_breakpoints->emplace_back("swift_throw", "Swift Throw",
+                                          lldb::eLanguageTypeSwift);
+    }
+    assert(exception_breakpoints.has_value() && "should have been initted");
+    assert(!exception_breakpoints->empty() && "should not be empty");
----------------
labath wrote:

That's the second assertion, not the first one. The first one is really just a test for the implementation of `optional::operator=`.

I don't have such strong feelings about the second one, although one could easily argue that the fact that lldb says it does not support any of the mentioned languages is not a bug (at least, not a bug in lldb-dap). Correctness of the code following the assertion does not depend on the vector being non-empty (only on its existence), so this feels like it would be better off as a test.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95571