tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#247092, @emaste wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#246881, @tfiala wrote: > > > @emaste, I'm adding you because I have no idea what the state of the *BSD > > world is with regards to lldb-server. It looks like you might still use > > the process monitor bits so lldb-server might not be interesting over there. > > > We are still using the process monitor bits right now, but the eventual goal > is to migrate to lldb-server or something equivalent. lldb-server does build > on FreeBSD and I think it's worth having it in the default targets list so > that we can catch build breakage early, even if the resulting binary isn't > currently usable for us. Okay. Ed - I think I'm going to put this one in as is, but it will be trivial for you to add the extra CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME Matches check for FreeBSD in the LLDBConfig.cmake line when you can verify that it does the intended thing. An easy way to check is do a build the normal way with 'ninja lldb', see that you don't have lldb-server, make your change, and repeat, and you should get an lldb-server at that point. (And also the lib/python2.7 bits that we were forgetting to require on lldb in the past). http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
