I hate ifdefs, especially the ones that we've added to the code. I would hate to see any others go in. It's our plan for example to remove ifdefs that we have added . On Mar 31, 2015 4:28 PM, "Zachary Turner" <ztur...@google.com> wrote:
> 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
