[lldb-dev] Circular library dependencies
gclayton at apple.com
Tue Mar 17 13:58:10 PDT 2015
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> I agree that it should be organized by functionality, but I think it's possible to organize it by functionality in a way that better linking falls out naturally as a consequence. Also I'm not really talking about a major restructuring of every project, but just hitting a few key points. A good example is how source/lldb has 2 random cpp files dropped in, lldb-log.cpp and lldb.cpp. The way the CMake build works is that we treat all source files in a particular directory (and sometimes in sub-directories) as belonging to the same target, and each target is compiled to a .a file (or .lib file on Windows). So source/lldb.cpp and source/lldb-log.cpp get put into something I've called lldbBase.a / .lib. Now, since *everything* in the codebase depends on logging, we have to link everything against lldbBase, which also means lldb.o. And lldb.o depends on pretty much everything in the entire project.
Yes, this kind of change to better serve make/cmake is fine.
> The way this came up in context is that our unit test runner builds multiple executables, one for each component being tested. This makes the link time scale really horribly, because it's having to look at every .lib in all of LLDB just to link against one class.
You could make a DLL that contains all of the LLDB internals so that you don't have to relink stuff over and over again.
> In any case, the organization also doesn't make much sense. You can't use either source/lldb-log.cpp or source/Core/Log.cpp without the other, so seems to me they should both be in source/Core.
Again, this kind of change is fine.
> and lldb.cpp is kind of its own thing that is only necessary for global LLDB initialization, so it could be off by itself in like source/Initialize or something.
Fine with that too.
> So that's one example of something I wanted to fix. So to sum up, I agree we shouldn't do anything that's purely an optimization and has no benefit to code organization, but I think there's some places where the organization could improve and the rest would happen naturally.
I agree. But I would try and fix your rest runner to build against an lldb-internal.dll so you don't have to statically link tons of binaries over and over and pay a large cost, just make sure we don't expose the lldb-internal.dll to the outside world. We don't want people shipping tools that link against our internal C++ APIs, but is is quite OK for internal tests.
More information about the lldb-dev