[Lldb-commits] [lldb] update lldb-server platform help parsing (PR #162730)

[Chad Smith via lldb-commits]

================
@@ -371,107 +424,107 @@ int main_platform(int argc, char *argv[]) {
   signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
   signal(SIGHUP, signal_handler);
 #endif
-  int long_option_index = 0;
+
+  // Special handling for 'help' as first argument
+  if (argc > 0 && strcmp(argv[0], "help") == 0) {
+    LLPlatformOptTable Opts;
+    display_usage(Opts, progname, subcommand);
+    return 0;
+  }
+
   Status error;
   std::string listen_host_port;
-  int ch;
-
   std::string log_file;
-  StringRef
-      log_channels; // e.g. "lldb process threads:gdb-remote default:linux all"
-
+  StringRef log_channels;
   shared_fd_t fd = SharedSocket::kInvalidFD;
-
   uint16_t gdbserver_port = 0;
-
   FileSpec socket_file;
-  bool show_usage = false;
-  int option_error = 0;
-
-  std::string short_options(OptionParser::GetShortOptionString(g_long_options));
-
-#if __GLIBC__
-  optind = 0;
-#else
-  optreset = 1;
-  optind = 1;
-#endif
-
-  while ((ch = getopt_long_only(argc, argv, short_options.c_str(),
-                                g_long_options, &long_option_index)) != -1) {
-    switch (ch) {
-    case 0: // Any optional that auto set themselves will return 0
-      break;
-
-    case 'L':
-      listen_host_port.append(optarg);
-      break;
+  bool multi_client = false;
+  [[maybe_unused]] bool debug = false;
+  [[maybe_unused]] bool verbose = false;
+
+  LLPlatformOptTable Opts;
+  llvm::BumpPtrAllocator Alloc;
+  llvm::StringSaver Saver(Alloc);
+  bool HasError = false;
+
+  opt::InputArgList Args =
+      Opts.parseArgs(argc, argv, OPT_UNKNOWN, Saver, [&](llvm::StringRef Msg) {
+        WithColor::error() << Msg << "\n";
+        HasError = true;
+      });
+
+  std::string Name =
+      (llvm::sys::path::filename(progname) + " " + subcommand).str();
+  std::string HelpText =
+      "Use '" + Name + " --help' for a complete list of options.\n";
+
+  if (HasError) {
+    llvm::errs() << HelpText;
+    return 1;
----------------
cs01 wrote:

Yes, sounds good. 

Do you think I should also change the `return -1` to RETURN_FAILURE? It will be a change in return code, probably not a big deal but it would be a potentially breaking API change.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/162730