On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev
wrote:
> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome.
>
> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst
> possible outcome.
>
> Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never
- Original Message -
> From: "Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev"
> To: "Rafael Espíndola" , "Eric
> Christopher"
> Cc: "llvm-dev" , "Chris Lattner"
> , "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)"
> , "LLDB" ,
> "cfe-dev" , "David Blaikie"
> , "Paul Robinson"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016
>> The promise just says that 4.0 *will* read 3.X and 4.1 might.
>
>
> Yes, but while you have read it and interpreted it precisely, I suspect that
> many people have misinterpreted it and assume that 4.0 will be the last
> release to read 3.X. They may be incorrect, but I think it would still be
>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM Rafael Espíndola
wrote:
> > I don't think this is as obvious as you might think it is. We can happily
> > drop the "major version equals bitcode compatibility" implicit promise
> if we
> > want, but it's been there for a while and will need some messaging as to
>
