[lldb-dev] Alternative bindings for the SB* API

[Bruce Mitchener]

Hello all,

I have partial  JavaScript bindings for the SB* API. I've generated them
via SWIG and when using a current version of SWIG (3.03 or later, I think),
they generate something that can work for Node.JS, io.js and other
environments.  I've just been using these for some proof of concept work,
so they aren't complete yet.

It is probably possible to work on upstreaming these changes into LLDB. It
requires moving the *.i files into a directory where they aren't entirely
specific to Python.

This does bring up the point that if that were to happen, it would be a
good time to more clearly mark what is good practice in the SB* API and
what shouldn't be wrapped in new bindings. (There's no old code for JS or
other languages to worry about breaking, so they can ignore deprecated
APIs.)

The above path is kind of tricky and annoying at times though, so I've
thought about manually writing a C wrapper around the C++ SB* API and using
that for bindings instead. This would be more readily accessible in more
languages (that often interoperate with C better than they do C++).

Is there interest in generalizing the SWIG bindings generation and
including other languages than Python?

Is there interest in a C wrapper for the SB* API?

Is there a preference as to which approach might be more welcome? Lately,
I've been leaning towards the C wrapper being more useful to me across a
couple of projects, including one where I'd be writing code using the LLDB
API in Dylan (http://opendylan.org/) where we have an excellent C FFI but
not a C++ FFI.

 - Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20150218/561de262/attachment.html>