While moving Args around, I noticed that we have a bunch of
functions/classes that pass/store version numbers as a triplet of integers
(e.g. Platform::GetOSVersion). I got halfway into creating a wrapper class
for that when I noticed clang::VersionTuple, which is pretty much what I
wanted out of the box.
Now there are small differences between this class, and what we have now:
it has an extra fourth "build" field, and it uses only 31 bits to represent
the values. None of these seem to matter (particularly as we are
converting our representation into this struct in some places) that much,
but before I go through the trouble of pulling this class into llvm
(although technically possible, it seems wrong to pull a clang dependency
at such a low level), I wanted to make sure we are able to use it.
Do you see any reason why we could not replace our version triplets with
clang::VersionTuple ?
cheers,
pl
We don’t want the lowest levels of lldb to depend on clang. If this is useful we should move it from clang to llvm and use llvm::VersionTuple
We don’t want the lowest levels of lldb to depend on clang. If this is useful we should move it from clang to llvm and use llvm::VersionTuple
I agree, though this move will cause merging issues for many that have repositories that link against older llvm/clang. Doesn’t affect me anymore, but Apple will be affected.
Greg
+davide, +aprantl for the Apple perspective.
Fred is probably the person who can answer this question
We don’t want the lowest levels of lldb to depend on clang. If this is useful we should move it from clang to llvm and use llvm::VersionTuple
I agree, though this move will cause merging issues for many that have repositories that link against older llvm/clang. Doesn’t affect me anymore, but Apple will be affected.
I’m not sure I understand what issues you’re referring to, we don’t link new LLDBs to old clangs (and even if we did, it wouldn’t be something the that drives community decisions).
Fred
I’m good if Apple is good.
I was referring to the Swift and Apple internal branches. They tend to lock down against older llvm and clang repositories so when we put changes in llvm or clang that are required for LLDB, it makes merging a bit tougher in those cases. Again, I am not affected by this, just trying to watch out for you guys.
Greg
I was referring to the Swift and Apple internal branches. They tend to lock down against older llvm and clang repositories so when we put changes in llvm or clang that are required for LLDB, it makes merging a bit tougher in those cases. Again, I am not affected by this, just trying to watch out for you guys.
I understand and I appreciate it, I was just worried that I’m missing something obvious. We branch LLDB at the same time as LLVM so that’s not actually an issue. Of course, it might cause merge conflicts or make it harder to cherry-pick patches, but that’s just living downstream.
Fred
Thank you all for the feedback. I'll get on with this when I find some
spare time. I will send a patch which will show the final look of the code,
before I start moving VersionTuple into llvm.
cheers,
pl
I was referring to the Swift and Apple internal branches. They tend to
lock down against older llvm and clang repositories so when we put changes
in llvm or clang that are required for LLDB, it makes merging a bit tougher
in those cases. Again, I am not affected by this, just trying to watch out
for you guys.
I understand and I appreciate it, I was just worried that I’m missing
something obvious. We branch LLDB at the same time as LLVM so that’s not
actually an issue. Of course, it might cause merge conflicts or make it
harder to cherry-pick patches, but that's just living downstream.
Fred
Greg
I'm good if Apple is good.
We don’t want the lowest levels of lldb to depend on clang. If this is
useful we should move it from clang to llvm and use llvm::VersionTuple
I agree, though this move will cause merging issues for many that have
repositories that link against older llvm/clang. Doesn't affect me anymore,
but Apple will be affected.
I’m not sure I understand what issues you’re referring to, we don’t link
new LLDBs to old clangs (and even if we did, it wouldn’t be something the
that drives community decisions).
Fred
Greg
No issues from me.
>
> While moving Args around, I noticed that we have a bunch of
> functions/classes that pass/store version numbers as a triplet of
integers
> (e.g. Platform::GetOSVersion). I got halfway into creating a wrapper
class
> for that when I noticed clang::VersionTuple, which is pretty much what
I
> wanted out of the box.
>
> Now there are small differences between this class, and what we have
now:
> it has an extra fourth "build" field, and it uses only 31 bits to
represent
> the values. None of these seem to matter (particularly as we are
> converting our representation into this struct in some places) that
much,
> but before I go through the trouble of pulling this class into llvm
> (although technically possible, it seems wrong to pull a clang
dependency
> at such a low level), I wanted to make sure we are able to use it.
>
> Do you see any reason why we could not replace our version triplets
with
Hello again,
Just a quick update on the state of this.
I've managed to move VersionTuple from clang to llvm. I've also
created <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47889> to switch over our version
handling to that class.
Could I interest anyone in taking a quick look at the patch?
pl
Hello again,
Just a quick update on the state of this.
I've managed to move VersionTuple from clang to llvm. I've also
created <Login; to switch over our version
handling to that class.
Could I interest anyone in taking a quick look at the patch?
Somehow I can’t log into Phabricator from home so I can’t comment right now, but I took a look.
In some of your changes in the SB files you do:
if (PlatformSP platform_sp = GetSP())
version = platform_sp->GetOSVersion();
I don’t like putting initializers in if statements like this because I always have to think twice about whether you meant “==“. Moreover, all of the surrounding code does it differently:
PlatformSP platform_sp = GetSP()
if (platform_sp)
version = platform_sp->GetOSVersion();
so switching to the other form in a couple of places only kinda forces the double-take. But that’s a little nit.
Given that clang::VersionTuple::tryParse does what the hand-parsing in place (which I’m assuming it does or you wouldn’t have used it) this looks fine and a nice cleanup to me.
Jim
Thanks. I am going to submit the patch then.
>
> Hello again,
>
> Just a quick update on the state of this.
>
> I've managed to move VersionTuple from clang to llvm. I've also
> created <Login; to switch over our version
> handling to that class.
>
> Could I interest anyone in taking a quick look at the patch?
Somehow I can’t log into Phabricator from home so I can’t comment right now, but I took a look.
In some of your changes in the SB files you do:
if (PlatformSP platform_sp = GetSP())
version = platform_sp->GetOSVersion();
I don’t like putting initializers in if statements like this because I always have to think twice about whether you meant “==“. Moreover, all of the surrounding code does it differently:
PlatformSP platform_sp = GetSP()
if (platform_sp)
version = platform_sp->GetOSVersion();
so switching to the other form in a couple of places only kinda forces the double-take. But that’s a little nit.
I've rechecked the llvm style guide. It doesn't say anything about
this particular issue, but this syntax is used throughout the examples
demonstrating other things.
What I like about this syntax is that it makes it clear that the
variable has no meaning outside of the if block, which is the same
reason we declare variables inside the for() statement. But those are
microscopic details I'd leave to the discretion of whoever is writing
the code.
+1 for limiting the scope of a variable as much as possible