On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> (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. > Yes, but in the context of what is useful for that workflow. Not necessarily the way I'm doing it. (Or maybe so). > 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. > We have no issue using code that has no additional licensing requirements last time I verified. And there are no additional licensing requirements added by swig 3.x generation from what their website says (and my non-official interpretation of it). So I am pretty confident we can get the answer here to be yes. -- -Todd
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
