On 18 November 2015 at 09:02, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <lldb-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:03 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Nothing concrete at the moment; however, it could be interesting to look >> at the clang community and see what could be done for llvm-based language >> implementations. The angle that I think would be interesting would be if we >> can generate bindings more effectively based on the in-depth understanding >> of the language that is afforded by languages built on top of LLVM. This is >> probably less interesting for Python (particularly since we have a >> functioning solution) and more interesting for languages built on LLVM or >> clang. >> >> Honestly, though, I haven't spent much time on that. >> >> For the time being, I am going to not change the path for everyone on >> swig, and only use a static binding if swig cannot be found. This will be >> minimal impact for everyone and doesn't interfere with anyone using a >> specific version of swig. We can revisit larger questions about >> who/what/when on static bindings after we gain some experience with enabling >> them for those who don't have swig. We can review and adjust based on our >> collective experience. The two files this seems like it will be are the >> LLDBWrapPython.cpp and the lldb.py file that comes out of python. I hope to >> have this working in the next day or so. > > To try this another way, I really would like to voice my opinion very very > strongly for moving away from having different ways of doing things for > different platforms / build configurations / etc unless it is *required* to > support a hard requirement of someone's environment. > > Here's our current configuration matrix. > > Platforms: Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, Darwin, NetBSD, Other(?) > Build Systems: CMake, Xcode > SWIG version: 1.3x, latest > Python version: None, 2.7, 3.x (in progress) > SWIG Binding Generation: on-the-fly, static (proposed) > > In all of these cases (except the proposed), the matrix choices are > justifiable because they are there to support a hard requirement of > someone's environment, and I do not think we should grow for anything that > is not also a hard requirement of someone's environment. We definitely > should not grow it out of convenience, and *especially* not if it's only a > minor convenience. So I still am looking for a clear answer regarding what > problem this is solving. Is not having a swig binary on every machine a > hard requirement?
+1 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
