> that comes out of python that comes out of swig, rather (i.e. the binding generation output).
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing concrete at the moment; however, it could be interesting to look > at the clang community and see what could be done for llvm-based language > implementations. The angle that I think would be interesting would be if > we can generate bindings more effectively based on the in-depth > understanding of the language that is afforded by languages built on top of > LLVM. This is probably less interesting for Python (particularly since we > have a functioning solution) and more interesting for languages built on > LLVM or clang. > > Honestly, though, I haven't spent much time on that. > > For the time being, I am going to not change the path for everyone on > swig, and only use a static binding if swig cannot be found. This will be > minimal impact for everyone and doesn't interfere with anyone using a > specific version of swig. We can revisit larger questions about > who/what/when on static bindings after we gain some experience with > enabling them for those who don't have swig. We can review and adjust > based on our collective experience. The two files this seems like it will > be are the LLDBWrapPython.cpp and the lldb.py file that comes out of > python. I hope to have this working in the next day or so. > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Mitchener < > bruce.mitche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Stepping one step back further in the thread ... >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits < >> lldb-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Moving this back over to the list since I'm sure others have some input >>> here. Also +lldb-dev since it has more visibility than lldb-commits. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:18 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Breaking out the binding generation into a separate step will also be >>>>> important for a couple reasons: >>>>> >>>>> * (from before) I want to eliminate the requirement for the vast >>>>> majority of the builds to have a swig on their system, and >>>>> >>>>> * (not stated before) we'd like to move away from swig for binding >>>>> generation at some point. >>>>> >>>> >> Is there any discussion or thoughts about what the options would be for >> moving away from swig? >> >> - Bruce >> >> > > > > -- > -Todd > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev