Looks good.

In D9027#157233, @clayborg wrote:

I would love to see everyone stick to using SWIG.

No symbols need to be exported from the LLDB shared library except stuff that starts with "lldb::" or "init_lldb*". We use this as our exports list:

% cat resources/lldb-framework-exports
ZN4lldb*
ZNK4lldb*
_init_lld*

So adding extra languages will add a bit of bulk to the size of the LLDB shared library, but it shouldn't affect the public interface. So I vote to use SWIG.

Also, you can use the C++ mangled names like you would use a C interface. We don't use any inheritance and we use no virtual functions so every C++ function is available by looking up the mangled name and then you can learn how to call it correctly.

In D9027#156632, @zturner wrote:

In D9027#156622, @domipheus wrote:

With Zachary on this - I think it would be better to ensure the configuration/input files to the tool that produces these bindings is committed rather than the output itself.

I'm actually still not convinced that even that is the best solution. Hopefully Mukul can expand on why using SWIG directly to generate C# bindings doesn't work. We already have all these swig interface files built up, and the CMake is mostly set up to just work. Why not just use it and generate C# bindings directly?

Automating it seems like an ok thing to do, this was a start to see if the
community feels it will benefit them immediately having a C interface.

Can you also include the changes to http://lldb.llvm.org/build.html#BuildingLldbOnWindows?