labath added a comment. I am definitely not sad to see lldbBase go away, but I am wondering if we really need a separate library for this functionality (function).
The only reason I can think of is that this function forces a dependency on clang. If we put it in say Utility, then all of lldb would depend on a (very tiny) piece of clang. I don't think that most of lldb would care about that, but this isn't technically correct for lldb-server. It doesn't use clang, and only depends on it because of the general tangledness of lldb dependencies. In an ideal world one would even be able to build lldb-server without having clang checked out. However, given that: - we are pretty far from an ideal world, and if we ever reach it, we could make this small dependency conditional on the existence of clang - it's really not clear (to me) what else should belong in the Basic library I am thinking that we could just put this stuff into Utility. It's true that the clang version stuff lives in a library called "Basic", but that's because this is the name clang chose for its lowest level library. In lldb the lowest level library is Utility. WDYT? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115211/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115211 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
