[lldb-dev] [RFC] Removing lldb-mi

[Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev]

Thank you for doing this, Raphael. I believe this shows that it's possible
to keep lldb-mi alive, without today's maintenance burden on the LLDB
community, a solution that seems to appease everyones concerns in this
thread. I hope this sparks interest for somebody to step up as a
maintainer.

I went ahead and created a diff to add the proposed deprecations to the
LLVM release notes: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64254
I'll put up another diff to remove the code, which we can land once LLVM 9
has branched.

Thank you,
Jonas

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> I just went forward with this and made a quick test repo with an
> out-of-tree lldb-mi that compiles against the system LLDB:
> https://github.com/Teemperor/lldb-mi This seems to work fine with the
> exception of the python tests which require LLDB’s python code for testing
> which isn’t installed alongside LLDB. I guess we will have to see if we
> copy the related test code there or we just rewrite the test suite (which
> is anyway broken). On the upside, we can now just use Travis for CI as we
> don’t have to compile LLVM/Clang/LLDB, so that’s nice.
>
> I’m in favor of deprecating lldb-mi with 9.0.0 and then we can give
> downstream time until 10.0.0 (or X.0.0 :) ) to package out-of-tree lldb-mi
> for users. Given how simple lldb-mi is, this seems like a reasonable
> timeframe.
>
> - Raphael
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:58 AM Zdenek Prikryl via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> We're using it with Eclipse and Eclipse based product, so I'd like to
>> keep as well! :-)...
>>
>> Zdenek
>>
>
> I do understand that there's desire from people to keep this around (from
> an user perspective), but I guess this fundamentally misses Jonas' original
> mail point.
> lldb-mi has been unmaintained for a long time (at least the past two years
> from what I can tell), and we tried to use it in emacs without success.
> It has never been a priority for many of the parties putting effort in
> lldb and I'm under the impression the situation won't change in the
> foreseeable future.
> Unless somebody steps up as maintainer I don't think there's a lot of
> future for the tool.
> Maybe a good compromise would be that of having lldb-mi living in a
> separate repo somewhere on GitHub, as it only uses the SBAPI, which is
> public and set in stone?
>
> --
> Davide
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20190705/6d5ee47b/attachment-0001.html>