[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jun 14 18:48:12 PDT 2016
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev <
>> lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>,
>>> > "openmp-dev (openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > Cc: "r jordans" <r.jordans at tue.nl>, "Paul Robinson" <
>>> Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com>
>>> > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:54:19 PM
>>> > Subject: [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release]
>>> Release plan and call for testers)
>>> > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a
>>> > separate
>>> > issue, and to make sure people see it.
>>> > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as
>>> > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main
>>> > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally
>>> > surprised by both.
>>> > Brain-dump so far:
>>> > - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0
>>> > comes after 3.9.
>>> > - There are special bitcode stability rules  concerning major
>>> > version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there
>>> > aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10.
>>> > - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions,
>>> > but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine.
>>> > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR
>>> > change?
>>> I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural
>>> forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should increment
>>> the major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as it will be
>>> a major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0. Until then,
>>> unless something else breaking comes up, 3.10 sounds fine to me.
>> +1, complete agreement.
> While I'm not sure opaque pointer types are going to increment versions
> I'm also in agreement that 3.10 is the right way to go.
-- Sean Silva
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev