PluginInstructionARM: avoid unnecessary link

[compnerd]

Summary

lldbPluginInstructionARM does not depend on lldbProcessUtility at link
time. The dependency is for defines and helper functions which are
header only dependencies.

[labath]

I don't think this is a good way to solve this problem. The llvm's definition of dependencies http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#library-layering explicitly that it is not the same as "the thing that's needed to make linkers happy" (emphasis mine):

One library (both its headers and implementation) should only use things from the libraries listed in its dependencies.

***Some*** of this constraint can be enforced by classic Unix linkers...

This doesn’t fully enforce all inter-library dependencies, and importantly doesn’t enforce header file circular dependencies created by inline functions. A good way to answer the “is this layered correctly” would be to consider whether a Unix linker would succeed at linking the program if all inline functions were defined out-of-line...

I am guessing that you the reason for this dependency is the headers defining various register constants. A good way to solve that would be to create a new library, and move all the headers of this kind there...

[compnerd]

@labath - I don't have a problem with the dependency - we can do a add_dependency for the plugin. My issue is that this should not be linked against. That is to say, LINK_LIBS is not the same thing as a dependency. This mess of dependencies makes it difficult to track down the bloat in lldb-server. Currently, lldb-server weighs in at ~9M while gdb-server is ~700K.

[compnerd]

convert link to a proper dependency

[labath]

My point is that we shouldn't need to differentiate between "link" dependencies and "other" dependencies, as it's not a well-defined boundary. It's easy to turn one into the other by moving things in or out of line. Hence my suggestion - move the required things into a different (new?) module.

[labath]

Or another thing: if one sees a header from module X being included in file Y, then it's reasonable to assume it's fair game to include another file from the same module X is fair game. But this creates a two classes of header files: files in X, which don't have a link dependency, and those that do...

[compnerd]

@labath - but that is the reality of this: there *are* two classes of dependencies. I think that if we try to split up all the modules into linked libraries and header-only libraries, we are going to make an even bigger mess than what we have.

source/Plugins/Instruction/ARM/CMakeLists.txt

 add_lldb_library(lldbPluginInstructionARM PLUGIN
   EmulateInstructionARM.cpp
   EmulationStateARM.cpp
 
   LINK_LIBS
     lldbCore
     lldbHost
     lldbInterpreter
     lldbSymbol
     lldbTarget
-    lldbPluginProcessUtility
   LINK_COMPONENTS
     Support
   )