================ @@ -377,3 +378,44 @@ line this command is found on. ### Heuristic [Deprecated] + + +--- +## DexStepFunction + DexStepFunction(function_name[, **hit_count=0]) + + Arg list: + function_name (str): function to step through. + hit_count (int): If provided, limit the number of times the command + triggers. + +### Description +NOTE: Only supported for DAP based debuggers. + +This command controls stepping behaviour: Tell dexter to set a function +breakpoint and step through the function after hitting it. Composes well with +itself (you can may a callstack with multiple targets to step through) and +`DexContinue`. + +--- +## DexContinue + DexContinue(*[expr, *values], **from_line[, **to_line, **hit_count]) + + Arg list: + function_name (str): function to step through. + hit_count (int): If provided, limit the number of times the command + triggers. + +### Description +NOTE: Only supported for DAP based debuggers. + +This command controls stepping behaviour: Tell dexter to set a breakpoint on +`from_line`. When it is hit and optionally '(expr) == (values[n])' is true, +optionally set a breakpoint on `to_line`. Then 'continue' (tell the debugger to +run freely until a breakpoint is hit). Composed with `DexStepFunction` this +lets you avoid stepping over certain regions (many loop iterations, for +example). Continue-ing off the end of a `DexStepFunction` is well defined; +stepping will resume in `DexStepFunction` targets deeper in the callstack. + +FIXME: hit_count should probably be inverted, like `DexLimitSteps`, to trigger +AFTER that many hits? ---------------- SLTozer wrote:
I'd suggest creating two separate words for it. In debugger parlance, I think "hit_count=n" means _after_ n hits, maybe we could replace the alternative form with "repeat_count"? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/152720 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
