bulbazord added a comment. In D142926#4123492 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D142926#4123492>, @labath wrote:
> 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. I think I agree with you about the choice of distribution method being orthogonal to choice of removing the swig ifdefs from the headers. That being said, I don't know if any other distributors would care for this and I'm not sure who I would ask. I added support for using `unifdef` in the LLDB.framework case because I can ensure it is used and tested. I am hesitant to add support without somebody to test/use this. Sort of tangential to this, the only other target where I think this would be used would be the `lldb-headers` target. That seems to install **all** the lldb headers, including all the private lldb headers. I could use `unifdef` there (assuming it's available). Is it intended that it installs all the private lldb headers though? 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
