[lldb-dev] Increasing support for other gdbservers

[Zachary Turner]

As long as it's possible to build lldb without it I'm fine with whatever,
including downloading it separately, building it, and referencing it
externally.  But I don't want it to be a forced dependency.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:19 PM Vince Harron <vince at nethacker.com> wrote:

> I really don't want LLDB to embed a copy of libxml2.  I think we should
> build it externally and reference it from LLDB.  Systems with package
> managers can get this trivially.  Windows can download and build all
> dependencies with one script.
> On Mar 31, 2015 2:10 PM, "Colin Riley" <colin at codeplay.com> wrote:
>
>>  I noticed that use in cmake also. FWIW, my primary LLDB platform is
>> Windows, which is why we were using TinyXML2 for ease of prototyping. If
>> libxml2 works on all the targets we will use it - I do worry about the
>> usual issues you get with windows prebuilts. So source may still be
>> required. We'll look into it.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> On 31/03/2015 20:45, Zachary Turner wrote:
>>
>> There's already some stuff in the CMake to try to find libxml, but it's
>> behind a Darwin specific branch in the CMake.  So I think what would need
>> to happen is that we move this into a platform agnostic codepath, and then
>> set a define like LLDB_HAVE_LIBXML2 in the code to a value that indicates
>> whether it is present (search clang for CLANG_HAVE_LIBXML in *.* to see how
>> this is done).  Then, in the code, we would need to put xml code behind a
>> check for this define.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:02 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A good rule of thumb for anything is that "Windows doesn't have it" and
>>> that holds true for libxml2 as well.  It appears that libxml2 does support
>>> Windows though (http://xmlsoft.org/downloads.html), it just isn't
>>> something that's there by default.  It would be nice if everyone were using
>>> the same thing, could we clone this repo in our own repo and then just
>>> build it ourselves as part of the build process.  The license looks very
>>> permissive, but IANAL.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:47 AM Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 31, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Aidan Dodds <aidan at codeplay.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On 30/03/2015 18:38, Greg Clayton wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I know about the register numbering stuff and I would love to see
>>>> support for the "$qXfer:features:" added to LLDB. The one thing this data
>>>> doesn't contain is the register numbers for the ABI (DWARF register numbers
>>>> (for debug info), compiler register numbers (for like .eh_frame)), but that
>>>> info could be inferred from an ABI plugin that we could infer from the
>>>> "osabi" of "GNU/Linux" in the target.xml:
>>>> >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > So please do submit patches that implement this and we will be
>>>> happy to approve them.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am currently prototyping $qXfer:features support in LLDB with an
>>>> aim to upstream it. It will require an XML parser, so I wanted to have a
>>>> discussion about adding one to LLDB.
>>>>
>>>> Most unix variants have libxml2 that is available. I am not sure on
>>>> windows though. I have CC'ed Zachary to get some input on windows XML (in
>>>> case LLVM doesn't already have some support for this).
>>>>
>>>> > I have been using TinyXML2 in my prototype, which is open sourced
>>>> under the ZLib license. Is there any policy in LLDB for handling external
>>>> library dependencies?
>>>> > Would there be objections to TinyXML2 making its way into the LLDB
>>>> code base as an external? Writing a new XML parser from scratch in LLDB
>>>> isn't ideal.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to stick with stuff that everyone has installed and
>>>> hopefully that is libxml2. Windows is the biggest question. I am also not
>>>> sure if llvm or clang has any XML support, but we should first look to see
>>>> if llvm has XML support and if not, then look for alternatives. We
>>>> definitely do not want to write our own.
>>>> >
>>>> > I would still like to have a discussion about adding a plugin
>>>> architecture to gdb-remote making it easier to handle packets outwith the
>>>> LLDB based servers. The code in gdb-remote that sends and handles packets
>>>> is scattered over one or two huge classes, it would be beneficial to start
>>>> looking at breaking this up and modularizing it. At least for the packets
>>>> which are not supported by lldb's own RSP producers.
>>>>
>>>> I say just build all and any support it into
>>>> GDBRemoteCommunicationClient and GDBRemoteCommunicationServer. I don't see
>>>> the need to break it up.
>>>>
>>>> Greg Clayton
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing listlldb-dev at cs.uiuc.eduhttp://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20150331/cda54e63/attachment.html>