[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] Removal of 'deplibs'?

[Jason SH Lin]

Dears,

If you remove this keyword, will you keep the backward compatibility in
LLVM 3.x?

We use this keyword in our project for checking dependent libraries, and we
rely on the promise that bitcode format will keep compatible in LLVM
3.x. In our project, we compile and save bitcodes for later use, but we
always try to keep our runtime upstream. Hence, we need
readers recognize previous version bitcodes as well, at least in LLVM
3.x. However, the incompatibility happened once in LLVM 3.1, and we deeply
hope it won't happen again in the future 3.x version.

Many thanks.
Jason

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

> Please nuke it.  It is really old and was never used.  If it comes back it
> should be done with module metadata.
>
> -Chris
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Did you know that there is a 'deplibs' keyword? Neither did I. It looks
> like it's not really used for much. We don't document it in the Language
> Reference. The only support I see if for reading/writing bitcode and
> manipulating modules. There's a bunch of code that could be removed if we
> could get rid of this.
> >
> > Does anyone use this thing? Does anyone mind if I nuke it?
> >
> > -bw
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121128/34561e69/attachment.html>