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
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg >
I don't think you need to concern yourself with that comment. We
should make the dependency graph cleaner, but that is not something
related to your current problem.
IIUC, in case of a standalone build, you can assume that the relevant
target was already built, and you don't need to add it to the
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> >
> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate
> > issue, and to make sure people see it.
>
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev"
> To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" ,
> "LLDB Dev" ,
> "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)"
> Cc: "r
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
>
> Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate
> issue, and to make sure people see it.
Thanks!
>
> If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as
> many arguments here
On 13 June 2016 at 18:30, Michael Kuperstein wrote:
> 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 rings a bell... but I have to be honest, it's weird...
Now, well,
On 13 June 2016 at 13:30, Michael Kuperstein wrote:
> 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,
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28091
Eugene Zelenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
On 13 June 2016 at 18:02, Rafael Espíndola 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
> I don't know that the actual policy has ever been formally documented,
> although it has been discussed from time to time, so it's not too
> surprising that people have different ideas of what the policy is.
>
> Maybe documenting the release-numbering-semantics policy alongside
> the
> -Original Message-
> From: hwennb...@google.com [mailto:hwennb...@google.com] On Behalf Of Hans
> Wennborg
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 9:27 AM
> To: Robinson, Paul
> Cc: Rafael Espíndola; Tom Stellard; llvm-...@lists.llvm.org; Release-
> testers; cfe-dev; openmp-dev
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:38:22PM -0700, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> It's time to start planning for the 3.9 release.
>
> Please let me know if you'd like to help providing binaries and
> testing for your favourite platform.
>
> I propose the following schedule:
>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
>> Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:47 AM
>> To: Tom Stellard
>> Cc:
> -Original Message-
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
> Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:47 AM
> To: Tom Stellard
> Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org);
> LLDB Dev; cfe-dev
> Subject: Re:
On 13 June 2016 at 10:11, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:14:43AM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
>> > The 4.1 release gives us the opportunity to drop support for 3.x
>> > bitcode formats, so I don't think we should move to 4.x until we have
>> > older bitcode
On 13 Jun 2016, at 15:24, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
wrote:
>
> +1. My understanding is that 2.9->3.0 came with some huge internal changes
> (overhaul of the type system, maybe? this slightly predates my involvement
> with LLVM so I'm not entirely sure) and warranted
> -Original Message-
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tom
> Stellard via cfe-dev
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:12 AM
> To: Rafael Espíndola
> Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org);
> LLDB Dev; cfe-dev
> Subject: Re:
On 13 June 2016 at 14:23, David Chisnall via lldb-dev
wrote:
> I don’t think that this makes it simple for anyone. Existing packaging tools
> understand dot notation and know that 3.10 > 3.9, even if interpreting the
> dot as a decimal point would mean that it didn’t.
On 13 Jun 2016, at 14:14, Rafael Espíndola via cfe-dev
wrote:
>
>> The 4.1 release gives us the opportunity to drop support for 3.x
>> bitcode formats, so I don't think we should move to 4.x until we have
>> older bitcode features that we really want to drop. There
> The 4.1 release gives us the opportunity to drop support for 3.x
> bitcode formats, so I don't think we should move to 4.x until we have
> older bitcode features that we really want to drop. There should
> probably be a separate discussion thread about this.
It give the opportunity, not the
Hi all,
I've been working on a platform-independent system for executables and
shared libraries to expose functionality to debug, monitoring, and
analysis tooling. It's called Infinity. I'm writing it to solve some
problems GDB has, but these are likely problems LLDB has too so I'd
like to make
22 matches
Mail list logo