Thank you for doing this, Raphael. I believe this shows that it's possible to keep lldb-mi alive, without today's maintenance burden on the LLDB community, a solution that seems to appease everyones concerns in this thread. I hope this sparks interest for somebody to step up as a maintainer.
I went ahead and created a diff to add the proposed deprecations to the LLVM release notes: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64254 I'll put up another diff to remove the code, which we can land once LLVM 9 has branched. Thank you, Jonas On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM Raphael “Teemperor” Isemann via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I just went forward with this and made a quick test repo with an > out-of-tree lldb-mi that compiles against the system LLDB: > https://github.com/Teemperor/lldb-mi This seems to work fine with the > exception of the python tests which require LLDB’s python code for testing > which isn’t installed alongside LLDB. I guess we will have to see if we > copy the related test code there or we just rewrite the test suite (which > is anyway broken). On the upside, we can now just use Travis for CI as we > don’t have to compile LLVM/Clang/LLDB, so that’s nice. > > I’m in favor of deprecating lldb-mi with 9.0.0 and then we can give > downstream time until 10.0.0 (or X.0.0 :) ) to package out-of-tree lldb-mi > for users. Given how simple lldb-mi is, this seems like a reasonable > timeframe. > > - Raphael > > > On Jul 4, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Davide Italiano via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:58 AM Zdenek Prikryl via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> We're using it with Eclipse and Eclipse based product, so I'd like to >> keep as well! :-)... >> >> Zdenek >> > > I do understand that there's desire from people to keep this around (from > an user perspective), but I guess this fundamentally misses Jonas' original > mail point. > lldb-mi has been unmaintained for a long time (at least the past two years > from what I can tell), and we tried to use it in emacs without success. > It has never been a priority for many of the parties putting effort in > lldb and I'm under the impression the situation won't change in the > foreseeable future. > Unless somebody steps up as maintainer I don't think there's a lot of > future for the tool. > Maybe a good compromise would be that of having lldb-mi living in a > separate repo somewhere on GitHub, as it only uses the SBAPI, which is > public and set in stone? > > -- > Davide > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
