[llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3
Smith, Kevin B via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 3 09:41:23 PDT 2016
>From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Chris
>Bieneman via cfe-dev
>Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 9:07 AM
>To: LLVM Dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Clang Dev <cfe-
>dev at lists.llvm.org>
>Cc: Chris Matthews <cmatthews5 at apple.com>; Galina Kistanova
><gkistanova at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Fwd: Raising CMake minimum version to
>Since there seems to be no strong objections remaining I’d like to propose
>the following timeline and process:
>4/23 - I will send another follow-up email reminding everyone of this change
>4/30 - I will send a final notice an hour before making the change to the
>LLVM, Clang, Compiler-RT, Clang-Tools-Extra, LibCXX, LibCXXABI and Test-
>During the week of 4/30 I will revert as necessary if bots fail. Hopefully
>having the change permanently landed by the middle of the week.
Do you mean 5/23 and 5/30?
>Does this sound agreeable to everyone?
>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:23 PM, Rowan, Jim via llvm-dev <llvm-
>dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Late to the party, but we’re ok with upgrading to any suitably stable
>version. I don’t have enough background to know which ones are “suitably
>stable”.. we have bots that run on windows, some old versions of SuSe, and
>Ubuntu (both x86), and native hexagon bots will come to life at some point.
>Sounds to me like 3.4.3 is the right choice.
>> It would be nice to have at least a month of lead time. (Which the OP did
>provide..) Upgrading every year or so isn’t a hardship.
>> Jim Rowan
>> jmr at codeaurora.org
>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
>hosted by the Linux Foundation
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>cfe-dev mailing list
>cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev