I'm good if Apple is good.
> On May 8, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Frédéric Riss <fr...@apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 8, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev >> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On May 8, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com >>> <mailto:ztur...@google.com>> wrote: >>> >>> We don’t want the lowest levels of lldb to depend on clang. If this is >>> useful we should move it from clang to llvm and use llvm::VersionTuple >> >> I agree, though this move will cause merging issues for many that have >> repositories that link against older llvm/clang. Doesn't affect me anymore, >> but Apple will be affected. > > I’m not sure I understand what issues you’re referring to, we don’t link new > LLDBs to old clangs (and even if we did, it wouldn’t be something the that > drives community decisions). > > Fred > >> Greg >> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:26 AM Greg Clayton via lldb-dev >>> <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> No issues from me. >>> >>> > On May 8, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev >>> > <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> > >>> > While moving Args around, I noticed that we have a bunch of >>> > functions/classes that pass/store version numbers as a triplet of integers >>> > (e.g. Platform::GetOSVersion). I got halfway into creating a wrapper class >>> > for that when I noticed clang::VersionTuple, which is pretty much what I >>> > wanted out of the box. >>> > >>> > Now there are small differences between this class, and what we have now: >>> > it has an extra fourth "build" field, and it uses only 31 bits to >>> > represent >>> > the values. None of these seem to matter (particularly as we are >>> > converting our representation into this struct in some places) that much, >>> > but before I go through the trouble of pulling this class into llvm >>> > (although technically possible, it seems wrong to pull a clang dependency >>> > at such a low level), I wanted to make sure we are able to use it. >>> > >>> > Do you see any reason why we could not replace our version triplets with >>> > clang::VersionTuple ? >>> > >>> > cheers, >>> > pl >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lldb-dev mailing list >>> > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> >>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lldb-dev mailing list >>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> >>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >>> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org <mailto:lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev>
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
