[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26188: [RFC] Solve linking inconsistency, proposal one

[Zachary Turner via lldb-commits]

Can I have some background? What is the linking problem?
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:16 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> tfiala added a comment.
>
> I'll let Greg comment on the public ABI expansion (i.e. including llvm of
> a specific version, which may differ from LLDB.framework clients that
> contain different versions of LLVM).  My guess is this is not going to work
> for us, since we have long-lived frameworks shipped with Xcode that get
> used by clients where we cannot assume what they are or are not using.
> However, we could address that by adding the reverse flag, which would be
> "don't export LLVM", and have that be exported by default.
>
> The bit I care about is the "modulo backtrace(3)..." part.  This change is
> taking away my ability to use log-based stacktraces on Linux if I read it
> right.  How were you envisioning I do that with this change?
>
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D26188
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-commits/attachments/20161101/3d16f029/attachment-0001.html>