(This is originally from a thread on lldb-commits, but it seems more appropriate here, so I'm responding here.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > BTW if you cook up something on the swig-as-a-service end that ends up > working to eliminate the need for swig, I'll be happy to remove the static > binding support at that point. > > -Todd > Err, rewind. If we have the swig as a service, then I think the static binding does have value. Because I don't want to hit the network every single time I build, so it mostly solves the issue you mentioned about network connectivity, because building LLDB doesn't require a network connection unless you touch a swig interface file. The thing I would like some guidance on from the Apple side is this: If I make the swig service, can you (and will you) use code generated by swig 3.x? If not, there's no value in the swig service.
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
