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

Todd Fiala via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Nov 17 20:12:31 PST 2015

> that comes out of python

that comes out of swig, rather (i.e. the binding generation output).

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nothing concrete at the moment; however, it could be interesting to look
> at the clang community and see what could be done for llvm-based language
> implementations.  The angle that I think would be interesting would be if
> we can generate bindings more effectively based on the in-depth
> understanding of the language that is afforded by languages built on top of
> LLVM.  This is probably less interesting for Python (particularly since we
> have a functioning solution) and more interesting for languages built on
> LLVM or clang.
> Honestly, though, I haven't spent much time on that.
> For the time being, I am going to not change the path for everyone on
> swig, and only use a static binding if swig cannot be found.  This will be
> minimal impact for everyone and doesn't interfere with anyone using a
> specific version of swig.  We can revisit larger questions about
> who/what/when on static bindings after we gain some experience with
> enabling them for those who don't have swig.  We can review and adjust
> based on our collective experience.  The two files this seems like it will
> be are the LLDBWrapPython.cpp and the lldb.py file that comes out of
> python.  I hope to have this working in the next day or so.
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Mitchener <
> bruce.mitchener at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stepping one step back further in the thread ...
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits <
>> lldb-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Moving this back over to the list since I'm sure others have some input
>>> here.  Also +lldb-dev since it has more visibility than lldb-commits.
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:18 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Breaking out the binding generation into a separate step will also be
>>>>> important for a couple reasons:
>>>>> * (from before) I want to eliminate the requirement for the vast
>>>>> majority of the builds to have a swig on their system, and
>>>>> * (not stated before) we'd like to move away from swig for binding
>>>>> generation at some point.
>> Is there any discussion or thoughts about what the options would be for
>> moving away from swig?
>>  - Bruce
> --
> -Todd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151117/8d0b6d18/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list