@hans they are ignored because Clang behaves like MSVC with these options
enabled (C++ standard conformance mode)

@rsmith Friendly ping.

@rsmith Friendly ping.

@rsmith Friendly ping.

@rsmith Friendly ping.

Not sure, but I'd be surprised if Clang behaves like MSVC in one of these cases.

Add tests

👍

I'm OOO till Mar 13. Can do that when I get back.

Thank you for this patch. And the next time please use arc or diff -U9999 for a full context.

👍

Thanks for catching this! Could you update this CL to let me commit it?

Would you like me to commit it?

LGTM. Just fix a few minor issues before committing.

lgtm

In D29256#662167, @krytarowski wrote:

@ki.stfu do you still agree with this patch?

In D29256#660159, @krytarowski wrote:

It's undefined (implementation defined) behavior.

C++11 5.2.2/7:

Passing a potentially-evaluated argument of class type having a non-trivial copy constructor, a non-trivial move contructor, or a non-trivial destructor, with no corresponding parameter, is conditionally-supported with implementation-defined semantics.

I don't know the point of this patch (probably it's something special for NetBSD? @emaste) but I'm okay with that.

lgtm

@enlight , thanks for giving a chance to review it, and sorry that it took to long from my side.

Rebase againt ToT; Apply clang-format & autopep; Minor fix in condition

yes

Hi! Please add tests for commands that you fixed. I'll take a look later this week.

lgtm

Rebase against ToT; Apply autopep8

Rebase against ToT

@edmunoz, good job. Thank you! Would you like me to commit?

PS: I think it will look like:

Index: tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdBreak.cpp
===================================================================
--- tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdBreak.cpp	(revision 281191)
+++ tools/lldb-mi/MICmdCmdBreak.cpp	(working copy)
@@ -84,8 +84,7 @@
   // Not implemented m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValOptionShort(
   // m_constStrArgNamedHWBrkPt, false, false));
   m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValOptionShort(
-      m_constStrArgNamedPendinfBrkPt, false, true,
-      CMICmdArgValListBase::eArgValType_StringQuotedNumberPath, 1));
+      m_constStrArgNamedPendinfBrkPt, false, true));
   m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValOptionShort(m_constStrArgNamedDisableBrkPt,
                                                false, false));
   // Not implemented m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValOptionShort(
@@ -99,7 +98,7 @@
   m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValOptionShort(
       m_constStrArgNamedRestrictBrkPtToThreadId, false, true,
       CMICmdArgValListBase::eArgValType_Number, 1));
-  m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValString(m_constStrArgNamedLocation, false,
+  m_setCmdArgs.Add(new CMICmdArgValString(m_constStrArgNamedLocation, true,
                                           true, false, false, true));
   return ParseValidateCmdOptions();
 }
@@ -158,12 +157,7 @@
     m_strArgOptionThreadGrp = CMIUtilString::Format("i%d", nThreadGrp);
   }
   m_bBrkPtIsPending = pArgPendingBrkPt->GetFound();
-  if (pArgLocation->GetFound())
-    m_brkName = pArgLocation->GetValue();
-  else if (m_bBrkPtIsPending) {
-    pArgPendingBrkPt->GetExpectedOption<CMICmdArgValString, CMIUtilString>(
-        m_brkName);
-  }
+  m_brkName = pArgLocation->GetValue();
   if (pArgIgnoreCnt->GetFound()) {
     pArgIgnoreCnt->GetExpectedOption<CMICmdArgValNumber, MIuint>(
         m_nBrkPtIgnoreCount);

I'm sorry for the delay, have a lot of work. Please folllow my inline comments, rebase against ToT and update CL's summary.

You forgot to remove its header file

Apply clang-format

Rebase against ToT

Fixes per Zachary's comments

Apply clang-format

Remove obvious comment

BTW, the following warnings remain:

lgtm if tests are passed

Yes, that's what I said. We have to throw an error if location is not passed (even if -f is specified).

So, what you want is to create pending breakpoints without locations?

No. I'm going to land it right now! Thanks!

Could you add a test case for this in packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/tools/lldb-mi/breakpoint/TestMiBreak.py?

add checks for =breakpoint-modified

@faxue, thank you for your patch! The fixes look good, but if you don't mind I gonna improve your tests. After that I'll commit this patch.

Hi Chuck! Sorry for delay, didn't see this CL. I'll check it tomorrow, so pls wait one more day.

clang-format your changes please (there are many deviations from the coding style)

lgtm

lgtm

LGTM

lgtm

In D13058#258903, @dawn wrote:

This patch is good to commit now right? It's not marked "accepted" for some reason.

It's not "accepted" because @clayborg rejected this CL and hasn't changed his decision. But I think he will not mind if you go ahead.

lgtm

Could you make one additional cleanup here please?