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

[Todd Fiala via lldb-dev]

Usage of static bindings for the prepare_bindings.py script went in here:
r253448.

Only Xcode provides the flag to use it.  The commit description indicates
how it works in this incarnation.  Essentially it only uses the static
Python binding if and only if a swig isn't specified or cannot be found.

I'll be testing this on Ubuntu 14.04 and 15.10 in the morning.  Once I have
that working, I'll provide a cmake flag to vector over to it, defaulting to
not do so.

-Todd


On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> > that comes out of python
>
> that comes out of swig, rather (i.e. the binding generation output).
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>



-- 
-Todd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151118/2e734de7/attachment.html>