Yes, that concept came out in the thread. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't also a desire to park on a version of llvm/clang, and if so, that the path there is not pleasant and definitely not intended to be supported on top of tree svn/trunk.
Thanks for clarifying! -Todd On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pavel Labath <lab...@google.com> wrote: > On 2 December 2015 at 16:19, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry for being late the the party here. > > > > Sean Callanan and some of the other members can comment more on this, but > > LLDB's expression parser for C/C++ is going to need access to the clang > > include headers, so somehow lldb has to be able to find them. Out of > tree > > llvm/clang usage is certainly possible as others have pointed out. Using > > that as the one way it is done, though, is likely to lead to pain. > Parts of > > lldb's source will adjust as needed when the API surface area of LLVM or > > clang changes. It may not be happening quite as frequently as it had > say 2 > > or 3 years ago, but it definitely happens. So my expectation would be > that > > if you decouple lldb from llvm/clang (i.e. let them drift), sooner or > later > > you will get bitten by that. Particularly when things like clang modules > > and whatnot come along and actually require different logic on the lldb > side > > to deal with content generated on the clang/llvm side. Once expression > > evaluation is potentially compromised (due to the drift), I suspect the > lldb > > experience will degrade significantly. > > I think you have misunderstood our intentions here. > > Kamil, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we are talking > about building lldb against a different version of clang. What we want > is just to be able to build and link lldb against an already-built > clang (of the same version). This is quite useful when you (as a > distribution maintainer) want to provide prebuilt packages. So, for > example you can have a "clang" and an "lldb" package. Users wishing to > install clang, just get the first one, while someone installing lldb > will get the correct clang package pulled automatically. I believe the > easiest way to build these packages is to use the standalone mode of > lldb (which already exists, and some people use that). > > hope that makes sense, > pl > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
