bulbazord 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. 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.
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. I am a little curious though, it looks like this change is very DWARF centric. Are you also generating DWARF for Mojo on Windows? Will you be doing something similar for PDBs? 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
