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

[Todd Fiala via lldb-commits]

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-commits/attachments/20151117/90dedd08/attachment.html>