[lldb-dev] Exclusively build and install LLDB?

Todd Fiala via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Dec 2 08:38:36 PST 2015

Yes, that concept came out in the thread.  I just wanted to make sure there
wasn't also a desire to park on a version of llvm/clang, and if so, that
the path there is not pleasant and definitely not intended to be supported
on top of tree svn/trunk.

Thanks for clarifying!


On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:

> On 2 December 2015 at 16:19, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry for being late the the party here.
> >
> > Sean Callanan and some of the other members can comment more on this, but
> > LLDB's expression parser for C/C++ is going to need access to the clang
> > include headers, so somehow lldb has to be able to find them.  Out of
> tree
> > llvm/clang usage is certainly possible as others have pointed out.  Using
> > that as the one way it is done, though, is likely to lead to pain.
> Parts of
> > lldb's source will adjust as needed when the API surface area of LLVM or
> > clang changes.  It may not be happening quite as frequently as it had
> say 2
> > or 3 years ago, but it definitely happens.  So my expectation would be
> that
> > if you decouple lldb from llvm/clang (i.e. let them drift), sooner or
> later
> > you will get bitten by that.  Particularly when things like clang modules
> > and whatnot come along and actually require different logic on the lldb
> side
> > to deal with content generated on the clang/llvm side.  Once expression
> > evaluation is potentially compromised (due to the drift), I suspect the
> lldb
> > experience will degrade significantly.
> I think you have misunderstood our intentions here.
> Kamil, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we are talking
> about building lldb against a different version of clang. What we want
> is just to be able to build and link lldb against an already-built
> clang (of the same version). This is quite useful when you (as a
> distribution maintainer) want to provide prebuilt packages. So, for
> example you can have a "clang" and an "lldb" package. Users wishing to
> install clang, just get the first one, while someone installing lldb
> will get the correct clang package pulled automatically. I believe the
> easiest way to build these packages is to use the standalone mode of
> lldb (which already exists, and some people use that).
> hope that makes sense,
> pl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151202/ef0df9f5/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list