Usage of static bindings for the prepare_bindings.py script went in here: r253448.
Only Xcode provides the flag to use it. The commit description indicates how it works in this incarnation. Essentially it only uses the static Python binding if and only if a swig isn't specified or cannot be found. I'll be testing this on Ubuntu 14.04 and 15.10 in the morning. Once I have that working, I'll provide a cmake flag to vector over to it, defaulting to not do so. -Todd On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > that comes out of python > > that comes out of swig, rather (i.e. the binding generation output). > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nothing concrete at the moment; however, it could be interesting to look >> at the clang community and see what could be done for llvm-based language >> implementations. The angle that I think would be interesting would be if >> we can generate bindings more effectively based on the in-depth >> understanding of the language that is afforded by languages built on top of >> LLVM. This is probably less interesting for Python (particularly since we >> have a functioning solution) and more interesting for languages built on >> LLVM or clang. >> >> Honestly, though, I haven't spent much time on that. >> >> For the time being, I am going to not change the path for everyone on >> swig, and only use a static binding if swig cannot be found. This will be >> minimal impact for everyone and doesn't interfere with anyone using a >> specific version of swig. We can revisit larger questions about >> who/what/when on static bindings after we gain some experience with >> enabling them for those who don't have swig. We can review and adjust >> based on our collective experience. The two files this seems like it will >> be are the LLDBWrapPython.cpp and the lldb.py file that comes out of >> python. I hope to have this working in the next day or so. >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Mitchener < >> bruce.mitche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Stepping one step back further in the thread ... >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits < >>> lldb-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Moving this back over to the list since I'm sure others have some input >>>> here. Also +lldb-dev since it has more visibility than lldb-commits. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:18 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Breaking out the binding generation into a separate step will also be >>>>>> important for a couple reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>> * (from before) I want to eliminate the requirement for the vast >>>>>> majority of the builds to have a swig on their system, and >>>>>> >>>>>> * (not stated before) we'd like to move away from swig for binding >>>>>> generation at some point. >>>>>> >>>>> >>> Is there any discussion or thoughts about what the options would be for >>> moving away from swig? >>> >>> - Bruce >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Todd >> > > > > -- > -Todd > -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
