[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers
Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 13 07:24:48 PDT 2016
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tom
> Stellard via cfe-dev
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:12 AM
> To: Rafael Espíndola
> Cc: llvm-dev; Release-testers; openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org);
> LLDB Dev; cfe-dev
> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:14:43AM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> > > The 4.1 release gives us the opportunity to drop support for 3.x
> > > bitcode formats, so I don't think we should move to 4.x until we have
> > > older bitcode features that we really want to drop. There should
> > > probably be a separate discussion thread about this.
> > It give the opportunity, not the obligation. Given that I think it is
> > an independent issue and would suggest we just keep the revisions
> > simple and switch trunk to 4.0.
> Hi Rafael,
> The main issue I see with automatically moving to 4.0, is that if a year
> from now we decide we want to drop a bitcode feature, we can't really do
> it unless we bump the major version again to 5.0. If we continue on
> with 3.x, then we still have the flexibility to drop bitcode features
> when we decide it's necessary.
+1. My understanding is that 2.9->3.0 came with some huge internal changes
(overhaul of the type system, maybe? this slightly predates my involvement
with LLVM so I'm not entirely sure) and warranted a major-version change
regardless of the .9->.0 thing.
I don't think 3.10 should be confusing to anyone, really. The version
number is a tuple, not a string or a decimal fraction.
> > Cheers,
> > Rafael
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev