[cfe-dev] Which revision of clang for LLVM2.5?

[Graham Wakefield]

Grabbing r65926 of both llvm & clang built - thanks!

I don't know why, I had just assumed they weren't using the same  
revision numbers.

On Mar 13, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

> Well, it looks like 2.5 was tagged at r65926, try grabbing that  
> version of clang?
>
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=65926
>
>  - Daniel
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Graham Wakefield <lists at grahamwakefield.net 
> > wrote:
> That's what I've been doing so far, however it's caught me out on  
> several occasions. I'm maintaining a project that uses LLVM quite  
> extensively, with other developers, across two platforms. Every time  
> I move to a new development machine and check out & rebuild the  
> latest LLVM/clang svn, I have to make minor updates to my own code  
> to match the changes in the LLVM/clang C++ API. Naturally, that  
> means that every other development machine also has to check out &  
> rebuild the latest svn at the same time...
>
> I guess I could embed the LLVM/Clang source tree into my own  
> project, but I'd rather not if possible. So I was hoping to find a  
> 'reference version' that I could work my own code against, until  
> clang gets folded into a stable LLVM release. I figured there might  
> be an earlier revision in the svn history that would conform to LLVM  
> release 2.4/2.5.
>
> On Mar 13, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>
>> Do you have a particular reason for using LLVM 2.5? Since you are  
>> already checking out the source, why not just use LLVM top of tree  
>> with clang top of tree. This should always work, and if not its a  
>> bug and we are generally quite quick to fix it.
>>
>> If you really want to do this all someone needs to do is find the  
>> revision where we tagged LLVM 2.5, checking out that clang revision  
>> should work fine with that LLVM.
>>
>>  - Daniel
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Graham Wakefield <lists at grahamwakefield.net 
>> > wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Which revision of clang is safe to build against LLVM 2.5?  Just  
>> tried
>> on the current svn and got a whole range of build errors for clang.
>>
>> If there is none, then which is safe against 2.4?
>>
>> Thanks
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20090314/4b38af9c/attachment.html>