Unless someone has a strong desire to keep it and it adds necessary functionality I would vote for removing it. It can always be maintained downstream. That being said, let's wait and see if anyone chimes in.
I also want to test this tomorrow to make sure nothing breaks. Just to be clear, if i were to apply this on mac into a canonical llvm-style directory hierarchy and run ninja check-lldb, is that supposed to work? On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:36 PM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > tfiala accepted this revision. > tfiala added a subscriber: labath. > tfiala added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > LGTM. > > Chris - you might want to add @labath to this as well. > > > ================ > Comment at: source/API/CMakeLists.txt:9 > @@ -8,1 +8,3 @@ > > +option(LLDB_BUILD_FRAMEWORK "Build the Darwin LLDB.framework" Off) > + > ---------------- > zturner wrote: > > Is there any reason to have this off when building on OSX? Is there any > value in having it not be an option at all, but just if you're on Darwin, > you just always get a Framework? > I mentioned to Chris that I wasn't sure if the Google folks (or maybe > Dawn) that build with the CMake build might want to keep it building the > old way. > > I'd be all for only building only the framework way with CMake if nobody > else particularly cared. That would simplify things. But I don't want to > force it if anybody else cares. > > Our goal is to get the CMake-based build producing the same exact thing as > our Xcode-based build. > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D24749 > > > >
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
