On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <
> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev <
>> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:32 AM Richard Smith via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <
> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev"
>> > To:
Thank you for raising this question! I think 3.10 makes sense until we
have a strong enough breaking change (in anything, not just LLVM bit
code) to warrant bumping to 4.0.
~Aaron
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev
wrote:
> Breaking this out into
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev"
>> > To:
- Original Message -
> From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev"
> To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" ,
> "LLDB Dev" ,
> "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)"
> Cc: "r