[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D47235: Move ModuleList's dependency on clangDriver into Host
Zachary Turner via lldb-commits
lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org
Wed May 23 09:46:43 PDT 2018
SystemInitializerFull.cpp, in the
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...
More information about the lldb-commits