[lldb-dev] lldb patches for OpenBSD

[Amit Kulkarni]

> I think using ULLONG_MAX and friends makes sense.  For platforms that do
> not define them we can easily provide our own in a config.h.
>

OK, I will resend a diff with LLONG_MAX and ULLONG_MAX only.

>> 2) File.cpp needs <sys/stat.h> because all the permissions like
>> S_IRUSR, S_IWUSR, S_IROTH, S_IXOTH etc are defined there in OpenBSD
>> and FreeBSD (both -current or head sources). I don't have any Linux
>> sources around but Linux knowledgeable people will correct me, if its
>> needed there, if not we can add ifndef?
>
> Hmm.  They are defined there on linux too -- must be getting included
> indirectly somehow.  I do not see any reason to not just include the
> missing header directly in this case; no need to ifdef it AFAICT.

That's great then.

>
>> 3) DT_WHT won't be defined in <sys/dirent.h> on OpenBSD. In fact, it
>> was specifically removed.
>
> Interesting.  We get the d_type field only when _BSD_SOURCE is defined
> on linux.  Perhaps we should just be calling lstat(2) here?

Theo's words, I don't know why he didn't elaborate, anyway
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=130085319818542&w=2

lstat() would be good replacement. As it is defined in Open + Free BSD
and Linux.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=lstat&sektion=2&apropos=0&manpath=FreeBSD+8.2-RELEASE
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=lstat&sektion=2
http://www.linux.com/learn/docs/man/3566-lstat2

>> Also, is there any interest in convert the Makefiles into CMakeLists.txt?
>
> I personally to not know CMake very well.  I have used it a few times
> but not on a substantial project by any means.
>
> I do not have any flat out objections to using CMake.  Eventually we
> need a configure-like stage that I was eventually going to get around to
> implementing but if that can be done using a new CMake build then that
> would be fine with me (I think).
>
> However, the test suite is based on makefiles and I do not have a
> hand in that side of things.  CMake would need to be a good fit in that
> context too.
>
> Also, I think we would need to discuss if CMake can generate suitable XCode
> project files since its big advantage is the cross-platform thing.  If we
> cannot use it as a cross-platform build system then I am not too sure
> what advantage is has over good old make.

CMake is much better than anything to generate XCode project files,
Windows Vistual Studio support, Unix makefiles etc. I have hand
written some CMakeLists.txt files based on llvm/clang CMakeLists.txt
itself, but they will need to be updated by you guys when you make the
commits which add, delete, or rename files. If you follow and update
the CMakeLists.txt religiously, you can get lldb to be compiled on
almost all platforms. Of course the biggest hurdle is the  support to
be added inside lldb for BSD's, Windows etc. But with CMake you can
just forget about adding tweaks for all OS to get it to compile. You
can concentrate on development and CMake takes care of compilation.

If you are committed to using CMake, I will send across the files
after polishing it up... They aren't yet done for all the folders yet
but a major chunk is done. I really want to see lldb on OpenBSD, now
that gdb is inaccessible due to GPL v3.

http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ#What_is_CMake.3F

Thanks