Move checking m_dummy_target to after raw-plus-option parsing.

[jimingham]

CommandObjectBreakpointAddPattern is a raw command. I was adjusting the patch for changes to handle the dummy target changes done while the patch was in review, and I copied the lines to the beginning of the DoExecute, but in the case of raw commands, you have to do the option parsing by hand, and this was before the parsing was done so the state wasn't determined yet.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: None (jimingham)

Changes

CommandObjectBreakpointAddPattern is a raw command. I was adjusting the patch for changes to handle the dummy target changes done while the patch was in review, and I copied the lines to the beginning of the DoExecute, but in the case of raw commands, you have to do the option parsing by hand, and this was before the parsing was done so the state wasn't determined yet.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170888.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp (+3-2)

diff --git a/lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp b/lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp
index c06b3ee028b69..8e163fbfb8942 100644
--- a/lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp
+++ b/lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectBreakpoint.cpp
@@ -1255,8 +1255,6 @@ class CommandObjectBreakpointAddPattern : public CommandObjectRaw {
                  CommandReturnObject &result) override {
     const bool internal = false;
     ExecutionContext exe_ctx = GetCommandInterpreter().GetExecutionContext();
-    Target &target =
-        m_dummy_options.m_use_dummy ? GetDummyTarget() : GetTarget();
     m_all_options.NotifyOptionParsingStarting(&exe_ctx);
 
     if (command.empty()) {
@@ -1279,6 +1277,9 @@ class CommandObjectBreakpointAddPattern : public CommandObjectRaw {
     }
     printf("Pattern: '%s'\n", pattern.str().c_str());
 
+    Target &target =
+        m_dummy_options.m_use_dummy ? GetDummyTarget() : GetTarget();
+
     BreakpointSP bp_sp;
     const size_t num_files = m_options.m_files.GetSize();
 

[jimingham]

This is a follow on to:

#156067

The test suite runs were clean for me except for one weird failure that seemed due to symbols-on-demand, but then I got a few other flakey failures, and fortunately the ASAN bots turned up the problem, which this PR should fix.

[jimingham]

I'm going to merge this w/o review. The patch is trivial and should fix some bot failures the previous PR caused.