<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Russell,<div><br></div><div>to elaborate on Greg’s point, LLDB for Linux is an evolving creature and</div><div>isn’t yet at the point where we can cut a release and call it “stable.” You’re</div><div>going to have a much better experience by using as recent an SVN checkout</div><div>as possible.</div><div><br></div><div>Sean</div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:24 PM, "Russell E. Owen" <<a href="mailto:rowen@uw.edu">rowen@uw.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">We have a linux system that uses LLVM 3.2 and Clang 3.2. I would really <br>like to have LLDB available, as well.<br><br>However, I have not found an official repo of LLDB 3.2, even though the <br>release notes for LLVM 3.2 <br><<a href="http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/docs/ReleaseNotes.html">http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/docs/ReleaseNotes.html</a>> do mention it.<br><br>svn ls <a href="http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lldb/tags">http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lldb/tags</a><br>shows lots of LLDB tags, but none that are labelled 3.2. Is one of them <br>the right choice, and does it work well on linux?<br><br>Any suggestions on how best to proceed? Given a choice we prefer stable <br>releases, but robustness is even more important.<br><br>-- Russell<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>lldb-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu">lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>