Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

Checking in the static bindings is no different than projects checking in autoconf config baked scripts so that the vast majority of people don't need to run autoconf just to get a setup that rarely changes. There is precedent for this going back a long way on open source projects. I'm backing

Re: [lldb-dev] keep an eye out for broken lldb bindings

FYI - This switchover change looks like it made it through the Ubuntu and Windows builders. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Todd Fiala wrote: > Hi all, > > I've cleaned up our swig generation scripts as used by cmake and Xcode > builds. They're working fine on Xcode,

Re: [lldb-dev] keep an eye out for broken lldb bindings

BTW this change only affected the swig wrapper generation. There's a separate "finish" script that I have not yet touched nor have I adopted on Xcode. I'll look at that as some near-term clean-up, I'd like to get Xcode using what everyone else is using there. -Todd On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM Todd Fiala wrote: > Checking in the static bindings is no different than projects checking in > autoconf config baked scripts so that the vast majority of people don't > need to run autoconf just to get a setup that rarely changes. There is

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM Todd Fiala wrote: > >> Checking in the static bindings is no different than projects checking in >> autoconf config baked scripts so that the vast majority of

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:00 AM Todd Fiala > wrote: > Checking in the static bindings is no different than projects checking in >

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM Todd Fiala wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner > wrote: > >> Because even if it isn't perfect for everyone, it works for everyone. >> > > Unless you can't get swig on your system in a way that

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Todd Fiala wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Zachary Turner > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM Todd Fiala wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Zachary

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

(This is originally from a thread on lldb-commits, but it seems more appropriate here, so I'm responding here. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM Todd Fiala wrote: > BTW if you cook up something on the swig-as-a-service end that ends up > working to eliminate the need for

Re: [lldb-dev] [Lldb-commits] [lldb] r253317 - Add Pythonic language binding wrapper generation script.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:15 AM Todd Fiala wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Zachary Turner >> wrote: >> >>> Because even if it isn't perfect for everyone,

[lldb-dev] Auditing dotest's command line options

I would like to do a complete audit of dotest's command line options, find out who's using what, and then potentially delete anything that isn't being used. There's a mess of command line options in use, to the point that it's often hard to find free letters to use for new options. I created

[lldb-dev] bindings as service idea

Hey Zachary, I think the time pressure has gotten the better of me, so I want to apologize for getting snippy about the static bindings of late. I am confident we will get to a good solution for removing that dependency, but I can certainly wait for a solution (using an alternate approach in our

Re: [lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

Ah good got it. Thanks, somehow didn't see this earlier. Thanks! On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > Google Drive is being bad right now. Hopefully this works better :-/ > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:20 PM Zachary Turner

[lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

Hey Zachary, Please make sure to ping Greg Clayton, particularly if it does anything that would make the binding no longer be C-linkage-compatible. He can tell you all the bits we are counting on. I think the keys are: * we don't ever have there be vtables. * we never remove API surface area.

Re: [lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

Can I send you a sample set of bindings generated by 3.x as a fail-fast test? Try them out, see if anything breaks, etc? On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 PM Todd Fiala wrote: > Hey Zachary, > > Please make sure to ping Greg Clayton, particularly if it does anything > that

Re: [lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

Sure. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Zachary Turner wrote: > Can I send you a sample set of bindings generated by 3.x as a fail-fast > test? Try them out, see if anything breaks, etc? > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 PM Todd Fiala wrote: > >> Hey

Re: [lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

LLDBWrapPython.cpp lldb.py Double check the top of lldb.py to make sure swig_version = (3,0,x) On Wed, Nov 18,

Re: [lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

Err, links aren't showing up for me. Gonna try this again. lldb.py - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzpf8QJC6OGOaEVaNF9GY0tPXzg/view?usp=sharing LLDBWrapPython.cpp- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzpf8QJC6OGOaEVaNF9GY0tPXzg/view?usp=sharing On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:19 PM Zachary