[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47235: Move ModuleList's dependency on clangDriver into Host

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

SystemInitializerFull.cpp, in the
function SystemInitializerFull::Initialize().

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:44 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> On May 23, 2018, at 8:51 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> There's not really a diagram, because we don't have an exact vision of
> what the final layering is going to look like (some things will need to be
> split up, entirely new targets will need to be introduced, etc).  Mostly
> it's just built from experience based on what the primary logical function
> of a target is, and then asking whether or not someone who wishes to use
> that functionality should be required to link in all of that target's
> current dependencies.  And hoping that a layering emerges from this
> process, at which point we can then make a diagram as well as enforce it
> through CMake / LLVMBuild / etc.
>
> Core is the fundamental target that contains the basic data structures
> representing a generic debugger.  A generic debugger shouldn't need to
> depend on clang.  Someone should be able to (in theory) link against Core
> (and perhaps a few other targets) and build a Java debugger.  Or a debugger
> for an embedded platform.  So a dependency on clang doesn't belong there.
>
> LLDB is a specific debugger which is built on top of Core and other
> libraries, and so that is why I think it makes sense to expose a static
> function in Module which allows you to set the clang modules path, and then
> we do that during LLDB initialization.
>
>
> Could you point me at a specific source file? It's not obvious to me what
> "LLDB initialization" means to you.
>
> -- adrian
>
>   For the record, that still isn't correct from a purity standpoint,
> because there is a method in Core which claims to have something to do with
> clang modules.  But at least it's relatively benign.
>
> In any case, what do you think about that approach?
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:42 AM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On May 22, 2018, at 6:57 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yea I don’t think this addresses the problem. We should be able to link
>> against parts of lldb without a dependency on clang. Since this is about
>> configuring something related to clang, it seems like it should be isolated
>> to some part of lldb that interfaces with clang
>>
>> And this is the point where I need some help :-)
>> The intended layering of LLDB is not at all clear to me. Which LLDB
>> libraries are allowed to link against clang? Do we have a diagram somewhere?
>>
>> -- adrian
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20180523/cc141de1/attachment.html>