-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.5k
[lldb][framework] Glob headers from source for framework #148736
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
chelcassanova
wants to merge
1
commit into
llvm:main
Choose a base branch
from
chelcassanova:lldb-framework-glob-files-from-source
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+16
−10
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is still globbing the build directory, so this patch still has the issue from the description. I imagine you want to do something like this instead:
ninja lldb-stage-headers
or something to verify this works. You probably want to make this target a dependency of liblldb. While doing this, you're going to iterate over the list of headers, so now's a good time to extract the basename and created a list with names of headers.ninja lldb-fixup-headers
or something. You probably want to make this a dependency of liblldb as well.As I'm writing this, why do you need to do to the staging at all? I thought the staging was to put the headers in
<build dir>/include/lldb
but this code lives in LLDBFramework so it's for the framework only, and the headers are staged inFrameworkHeaders
. Do we need this at all? Theframework-header-fix
script is already doin the unifdefing so I'm not sure what this is doing in the first place. If that's the case, then the code that globs the source dir and puts the headers in the build dir should take the role of (1).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If by this you mean
FrameworkHeaders
then I would say that I like having a staging directory to work from for the framework headers specifically, though I do agree that since the framework fix script already unifdefs the headers then the unifdefing that we have before we run the script should not be necessary anymore. I think from there then that loop that we have for unifdefing can be used for step (2) as you described while the loop for fixing up can be used for step (3). Any thoughts?