labath added a comment. The main reason I wanted to avoid a separate library is because I could not imagine how would it fit into the general library landscape in lldb. It's also moderately strange to have a library for just a single function, but that is something I can live with.
If the idea is that this library would consist of just the single function ~forever, then I think that `Version` is a better name, and I don't really have a problem with that -- that is pretty much the status quo anyway. One disadvantage of that is that the version number becomes hard to get from lower level parts of lldb. So far the only use we had for that were the reproducers, so if you say you can handle that, then I guess it should be fine. One advantage of that is that it opens up the possibility for different components of lldb to report different version string. For example, lldb-server could write its own GetVersion function (which wouldn't include clang), and that would look a lot more natural if the "main" version function lives in a library that it does not even use. 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
