It would probably better for whoever wrote this text to pipe in, but I think the idea is that (X+1).0 is supposed to be a kind of a "bridge" release.
That is, if you have legacy IR files that contain dropped features, or if the IR format changed significantly, you can still use the (X+1).0 auto-upgrade (which may be fairly complex) to read them, but this auto-upgrade complexity may be dropped in (X+1).1. I'm not completely sure this makes sense, but this is how I've always understood it. On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 18:02, Rafael EspĂndola <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> > wrote: > > It is documented at > > > > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility > > This is weird... > > "The bitcode format produced by a X.Y release will be readable by all > following X.Z releases and the (X+1).0 release." > > Why (x+1).0 ? > > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev