As long as it's possible to build lldb without it I'm fine with whatever, including downloading it separately, building it, and referencing it externally. But I don't want it to be a forced dependency.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:19 PM Vince Harron <vi...@nethacker.com> wrote: > I really don't want LLDB to embed a copy of libxml2. I think we should > build it externally and reference it from LLDB. Systems with package > managers can get this trivially. Windows can download and build all > dependencies with one script. > On Mar 31, 2015 2:10 PM, "Colin Riley" <co...@codeplay.com> wrote: > >> I noticed that use in cmake also. FWIW, my primary LLDB platform is >> Windows, which is why we were using TinyXML2 for ease of prototyping. If >> libxml2 works on all the targets we will use it - I do worry about the >> usual issues you get with windows prebuilts. So source may still be >> required. We'll look into it. >> >> Colin >> >> On 31/03/2015 20:45, Zachary Turner wrote: >> >> There's already some stuff in the CMake to try to find libxml, but it's >> behind a Darwin specific branch in the CMake. So I think what would need >> to happen is that we move this into a platform agnostic codepath, and then >> set a define like LLDB_HAVE_LIBXML2 in the code to a value that indicates >> whether it is present (search clang for CLANG_HAVE_LIBXML in *.* to see how >> this is done). Then, in the code, we would need to put xml code behind a >> check for this define. >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:02 AM Zachary Turner <ztur...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> A good rule of thumb for anything is that "Windows doesn't have it" and >>> that holds true for libxml2 as well. It appears that libxml2 does support >>> Windows though (http://xmlsoft.org/downloads.html), it just isn't >>> something that's there by default. It would be nice if everyone were using >>> the same thing, could we clone this repo in our own repo and then just >>> build it ourselves as part of the build process. The license looks very >>> permissive, but IANAL. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:47 AM Greg Clayton <gclay...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On Mar 31, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Aidan Dodds <ai...@codeplay.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On 30/03/2015 18:38, Greg Clayton wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > I know about the register numbering stuff and I would love to see >>>> support for the "$qXfer:features:" added to LLDB. The one thing this data >>>> doesn't contain is the register numbers for the ABI (DWARF register numbers >>>> (for debug info), compiler register numbers (for like .eh_frame)), but that >>>> info could be inferred from an ABI plugin that we could infer from the >>>> "osabi" of "GNU/Linux" in the target.xml: >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > So please do submit patches that implement this and we will be >>>> happy to approve them. >>>> > >>>> > I am currently prototyping $qXfer:features support in LLDB with an >>>> aim to upstream it. It will require an XML parser, so I wanted to have a >>>> discussion about adding one to LLDB. >>>> >>>> Most unix variants have libxml2 that is available. I am not sure on >>>> windows though. I have CC'ed Zachary to get some input on windows XML (in >>>> case LLVM doesn't already have some support for this). >>>> >>>> > I have been using TinyXML2 in my prototype, which is open sourced >>>> under the ZLib license. Is there any policy in LLDB for handling external >>>> library dependencies? >>>> > Would there be objections to TinyXML2 making its way into the LLDB >>>> code base as an external? Writing a new XML parser from scratch in LLDB >>>> isn't ideal. >>>> >>>> It would be great to stick with stuff that everyone has installed and >>>> hopefully that is libxml2. Windows is the biggest question. I am also not >>>> sure if llvm or clang has any XML support, but we should first look to see >>>> if llvm has XML support and if not, then look for alternatives. We >>>> definitely do not want to write our own. >>>> > >>>> > I would still like to have a discussion about adding a plugin >>>> architecture to gdb-remote making it easier to handle packets outwith the >>>> LLDB based servers. The code in gdb-remote that sends and handles packets >>>> is scattered over one or two huge classes, it would be beneficial to start >>>> looking at breaking this up and modularizing it. At least for the packets >>>> which are not supported by lldb's own RSP producers. >>>> >>>> I say just build all and any support it into >>>> GDBRemoteCommunicationClient and GDBRemoteCommunicationServer. I don't see >>>> the need to break it up. >>>> >>>> Greg Clayton >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing >> listlldb-...@cs.uiuc.eduhttp://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lldb-dev mailing list >> lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
