[lldb-dev] Optional Dependencies in LLDB

[Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev]

After trying it out I concluded that it should be easy enough to check
for the static bindings flag in FindPythonInterpAndLibs.cmake so I've
implemented your suggestion in fc6f15d4d2c. Thanks again for bringing
this up.

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2020, Jonas Devlieghere via lldb-dev wrote:
> >
> > > I just wanted to let you know that most of the work is complete for
> > > auto-detecting optional dependencies in LLDB. Unless explicitly
> > > specified, optional dependencies like editline will be enabled when
> > > available and disabled otherwise. This is different from  the old
> > > behavior, where optional dependencies were that were enabled by
> > > default would cause an error at configuration time. The motivation is
> > > to make it easier to build LLDB by making things "just work" out of
> > > the box.
> >
> > I think (didn't test at the moment, just browsed the cmakefiles) one case
> > that still isn't handled properly, is the interaction between python/lua
> > and swig. If python or lua are detected, they are enabled, and then the
> > build strictly requires SWIG to be present.
>
> Yup, good point, that's still on my TODO list.
>
> > I think we should check for SWIG first and require it to be present before
> > automatically enabling python and lua.
>
> That would make sense, but I haven't gone that route because
> downstream (Swift) we have the Python bindings checked-in. So it's not
> necessary to have SWIG in order to enable Python. Of course downstream
> shouldn't direct what we do upstream, but if I can figure out a
> solution that minimizes divergence I strongly prefer that. I'm hoping
> to get to this soon.
>
> >
> > // Martin
> >