labath added a comment. In D142926#4103185 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926#4103185>, @bulbazord wrote:
> In D142926#4102287 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926#4102287>, @labath wrote: > >> I like this. >> >> I'm not sure what it would take, but I think it'd be nice if the >> de-swig-ification was not specific to the framework build. Ideally, I'd make >> it controlled by a separate cmake variable, (autodetected to on if the >> relevant tool is found, but also overridable by the user). > > Yeah we could search for unified earlier in the process and use it when we > distribute headers. The de-swig-ification of the headers is primarily for > distribution, do any other platforms distribute the headers? Some certainly do. I haven't found them in debian, but they are present on gentoo for instance. The would be necessary if someone wanted to build a tool linking to liblldb, so I would consider the fact that they are missing a bug. > I'm sure that happens, but I'm unsure if they do anything other than just > copying the headers outright. Well... right now, there isn't anything else to do there. Anyway, I don't think this is particularly important. I don't know even if the distros would like to do this or whether to they'd prefer to ship unchanged headers. However, to me, it seems like the choice of the distribution method (framework vs. "traditional" unix layout) should be orthogonal to the choice of deswig-ifying the headers. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
