It looks like this could be raised to 100% by restoring the prior order of the llvm::Intrinsic enum?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Jiangning Liu <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Please refer to attached abi-compliance-checker report for those patches > I'm asking for back porting to 3.4.1. > > Test Results > ------------------------------ > Total Header Files 882 <#145261e7e2a6e86e_Headers>Total Shared Libraries > 2<#145261e7e2a6e86e_Libs> Total > Symbols / Types5491 / 2756 Verdict > > *Incompatible(0.1%)* > > So the backward compatibility is 99.9%, and I don't see big issues. > > Thanks, > -Jiangning > > > 2014-04-02 23:36 GMT+08:00 Tom Stellard <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:38:18PM +0100, Tim Northover wrote: >> > Hi Renato, >> > >> > > Apart from this one, I don't see any problem with the merges regarding >> > > ABI compatibility. >> > >> > I think Tom meant ABI compatibility in the libLLVMWhatever.so >> > libraries (and headers) rather than generated code. The 3.4.1 binaries >> > should be drop-in replacements for whatever systems we produce. >> > >> >> Yes, I was talking about LLVM's library ABI compatibility with 3.4.0 >> rather AARCH64 ABI compatibility. >> >> -Tom >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > -Jiangning > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
