clayborg wrote: > I think I am on the same page with Greg for not exposing these symbols for > not shoving everything into `lldb_private`. Perhaps instead of `lldb_plugin` > we can name it something like `lldb_private::plugin` instead? Not a huge > difference, but keeping the top-level private namespace still indicates that > it is still a "private" API.
I think of the lldb_private being the internal LLDB specific code, not plugin code. Right now most plugin code isn't in any namespace and I don't think it belongs in lldb_private. > Even if most folks aren't going to export lldb_private symbols in their > distribution of LLDB, perhaps the folks at Modular would like to do that for > the lldb they ship. The fact that the only stable interface is the SBAPI will > not change as a result of doing that. This would allow them access to the lldb specific code mostly needed to implement core functionality. But for plug-ins, it would be nice to be able to only export the specific plug-ins needed by folks to keep the number of exported functions down. If the plugin code is in "lldb_private::plugin", then if you export "lldb_private::*" you end up exporting all plug-ins whether you want them or not. Keeping them in a different namespace like "lldb_plugins" would allow you to export all of them "lldb_plugins::*", or just one with "lldb_plugins::dwarf*". > Changing the architecture or the way we build LLDB (having some > lldb_private.so/LLDBPrivate.framework) is a pretty big decision that I think > will require more buy-in from the community. Whether or not that's the right > direction to go in, I'm not sure. But that discussion is much more suitable > for the LLVM Discourse. Agreed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67851 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
