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

Todd Fiala via lldb-dev lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Nov 18 12:57:17 PST 2015

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> (This is originally from a thread on lldb-commits, but it seems more
> appropriate here, so I'm responding here.
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>> BTW if you cook up something on the swig-as-a-service end that ends up
>> working to eliminate the need for swig, I'll be happy to remove the static
>> binding support at that point.
>> -Todd
> Err, rewind.  If we have the swig as a service, then I think the static
> binding does have value.

Yes, but in the context of what is useful for that workflow.  Not
necessarily the way I'm doing it.  (Or maybe so).

> Because I don't want to hit the network every single time I build, so it
> mostly solves the issue you mentioned about network connectivity, because
> building LLDB doesn't require a network connection unless you touch a swig
> interface file.
> The thing I would like some guidance on from the Apple side is this: If I
> make the swig service, can you (and will you) use code generated by swig
> 3.x?  If not, there's no value in the swig service.

We have no issue using code that has no additional licensing requirements
last time I verified.  And there are no additional licensing requirements
added by swig 3.x generation from what their website says (and my
non-official interpretation of it).  So I am pretty confident we can get
the answer here to be yes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151118/c08a946b/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list