labath added a comment. In D142926#4124297 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926#4124297>, @bulbazord wrote:
> In D142926#4123492 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926#4123492>, @labath wrote: > >> Well... right now, there isn't anything else to do there. >> >> Anyway, I don't think this is particularly important. I don't know even if >> the distros would like to do this or whether to they'd prefer to ship >> unchanged headers. However, to me, it seems like the choice of the >> distribution method (framework vs. "traditional" unix layout) should be >> orthogonal to the choice of deswig-ifying the headers. > > I think I agree with you about the choice of distribution method being > orthogonal to choice of removing the swig ifdefs from the headers. That being > said, I don't know if any other distributors would care for this and I'm not > sure who I would ask. I added support for using `unifdef` in the > LLDB.framework case because I can ensure it is used and tested. I am hesitant > to add support without somebody to test/use this. > > Sort of tangential to this, the only other target where I think this would be > used would be the `lldb-headers` target. That seems to install **all** the > lldb headers, including all the private lldb headers. I could use `unifdef` > there (assuming it's available). Is it intended that it installs all the > private lldb headers though? I don't know... maybe it isn't? I guess this isn't particularly important and people can and deswigification steps there if they want to. I really like the rest of the patch though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
