tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#247074, @zturner wrote:
> Just a drive by comment since I don't have a vested interest in lldb-server > or this CL at the moment. But adding lldb-server as a dependency of lldb > seems strange to me. I mean I get it, it just seems strange. They're not > really dependencies in the normal sense. If you just use "ninja" instead > of "ninja lldb" you should get both targets, while still allowing "ninja > lldb" to only build lldb, as it currently does. > > Up to you guys though There are a few problems with this that we've hit in spades. People build "lldb" and think they can test it. They can't, not on Linux. Not a single test will work. That's because an essential component of lldb to function on that system. It would be like building 'git' but not getting any of the implementation detail scripts in libexec --- you can't do much with the executable without it. Practically speaking, yesterday I was working with somebody who built 'ninja lldb' as we state in the official website docs, and it (the lldb produced) couldn't be used for testing or debugging because it was missing essential pieces. And I always avoid it by just doing 'ninja', but then I waste time building other pieces of llvm/clang that I don't use. The line I initially was drawing was "if it is required to use lldb, it should be a dependency of the lldb target". I feel like asking for it on Darwin crosses that line, since we do not need it there at all. But I rationalized that one because we will use it on the tests if we find it. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
