[llvm-dev] [llvm-c] Deprecated functions
Eric Christopher via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Apr 5 15:18:12 PDT 2016
Yeah, honestly they're more the latter, but we haven't generally used the
attribute here. Mostly because we'd get to conditionalize another
attribute. I don't have a strong opinion either way though. (i.e. feel free
to submit something that adds an attribute for all platforms, or not if
this is a good enough explanation).
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM James Y Knight via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I think there's a two different "levels" of deprecated:
> a) There's a better function you should know about and prefer in new code,
> but the old one will (probably) not be removed. This sort of deprecation
> should only be mentioned in comments, since there's no real reason to have
> people's builds start spewing warning messages if they used the old
> b) There's a better function, and the old one will be removed soon. These
> ought to use a deprecated attribute, in order to entice people to switch
> over before it turns into a "no such function" error.
> I'd expect most of the deprecations in the C API to be of the former kind.
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Alex Denisov via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I’m working with the LLVM C API now.
>> I see that several functions are deprecated, however the only notion is
>> in comments around the function.
>> Is there any specific reason why __attribute__((deprecated)) is omitted?
>> Will it make sense to send a patch with such additions?
>> Software Engineer, http://lowlevelbits.org
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev