[lldb-dev] if you look at binding-generation-as-service element...

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

LLDBWrapPython.cpp
<LLDBWrapPython.cpphttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzpf8QJC6OGOc0RZNGY1dEhBZzQ/view?usp=sharing>
lldb.py
<lldb.pyhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzpf8QJC6OGOaEVaNF9GY0tPXzg/view?usp=sharing>

Double check the top of lldb.py to make sure swig_version = (3,0,x)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:14 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure.
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can I send you a sample set of bindings generated by 3.x as a fail-fast
>> test?  Try them out, see if anything breaks, etc?
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:07 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Zachary,
>>>
>>> Please make sure to ping Greg Clayton, particularly if it does anything
>>> that would make the binding no longer be C-linkage-compatible.  He can tell
>>> you all the bits we are counting on.  I think the keys are:
>>>
>>> * we don't ever have there be vtables.
>>> * we never remove API surface area.
>>> * we don't change signatures of existing API.
>>>
>>> but I don't think that's exhaustive and certainly not authoritative.
>>>
>>> Anyways, just make sure you sync up with him so you don't end up wasting
>>> any energy on something that will break some kind of requirement we have.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> --
>>> -Todd
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -Todd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20151118/bcc51b8d/attachment.html>