-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Compatibility with wide range of LLVM or Clang releases is out of scope.
On 02.12.2015 17:38, Todd Fiala wrote: > 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 > <mailto:lab...@google.com>> wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 16:19, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com > <mailto: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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWYN6jAAoJEEuzCOmwLnZsdnsQAK7bn22uT/O61/QDF9oEYRlR pzZtSkmGQZQuizw+TVUGgApk/KmwZ8BFsXUhguDzuDx8AR4qblYR+VwHSsQCaZwe OIoZFTOOsmw5fBsbcYmtjlGsWOFQBWXOpMwXIZ5eQyQU8Q1rW2ssmniyfO7SkIE8 agcfzShyhzkFsQ9SLlHkZbNP+CALBVCOGWH4PnvdSkruIHKxmoOycgNvsG1HXsOV jtgsx7S4EK1WEjPg3yzIiTgpYJVS2q3C2tLXmuYIg0TsNCwtoutSgodx6AV6Z31X RbuDU8Gr4HqGZZa8LydRmoj2FRrkaMYEO2b8L9caQDRDCyn0TVEb6m5GSzut9EjP +BKqeiNLaNVHIXjabsRf7a7tWpVSF0RH2vtyJOlXX1fisca4gWgpzLHY0u6IB37K LnA4H1j/+f4ffOc1UpjFZs9Y6aTKLwAZaieZQXz8cRMueTpFBegla2osvY/Stg2f OZnhzeUGcPVN2aERtR+HHxqWAZKHPHIPeTQTZ9vAEGF/KpedVrMEjgICCbisnLgQ VNnm68m1aD8+30DNI70629JdmyjLGr5khzBmPipNqqZk8TB9Wn5HExTcSQod3fBP +NHsaeucVcR0ZXL7vXM88yN28PRyHTGnVItAkSunsVCHwJ4WKtUyCHouSR2SMD2W g0MvEbC3BKaPKRYB3WgB =PHHJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
