[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D12899: cmake fixups: post-build python step dependency and lldb-server dependency for lldb on Linux

[Ilia K via lldb-commits]

ki.stfu added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248657, @tberghammer wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248654, @ki.stfu wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248648, @zturner wrote:
> >
> > > One possible solution is to make an lldb-all target.
> >
> >
> > As I said, it would much better rather than changing lldb dependencies. But I'm still not sure, do we really need something like lldb-all? Why we can't use "ninja" (i.e. without arguments) for building a whole LLDB?
>
>
> "ninja" without any argument builds everything including llvm, clang and a lot of related tools what increase the link time by a lot (assuming something changed in the llvm/clang repository since the last build).


cmake/ninja build has no a big difference between "ninja" and "ninja lldb":

  $ ninja -j1
  [1/3214] Building CXX object lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C
  ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user.
  $ ninja -j1 lldb
  [1/2848] Building CXX object lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C
  ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user.

So it doesn't matter what to do: ninja or ninja lldb.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899