[llvm-dev] LLVM Releases: Upstream vs. Downstream / Distros
Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu May 12 09:15:08 PDT 2016
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> On 12 May 2016 at 16:57, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> > Errr, Stephen has spoken up here, but my folks are in contact with
> > folks pretty much every week, and I don't think what you are stating is
> > correct on a lot of fronts.
> I obviously don't speak for Android and have already apologised to
> Steve about my choice of words.
> > So if android is your particular concern here, i can pretty much state
> > android LLVM is on a release process close to the rest of Google, which
> > 'follow TOT very closely'.
> Isn't this what I said?
But your position seems to be "this is a bad thing for folks", and the
position we take is that it's explicitly a good thing.
> Following ToT very closely is only good for groups that have high
> involvement in LLVM, like Google and Android.
> And for that reason (and others), Android doesn't use the upstream
> releases. I was wondering if we could make anything so they would.
> The major benefit wouldn't be, as I explained, specifically for
> Google/Android, but for Android users, Linux users, Linux distros,
> LLVM library users (including Renderscript), etc.
There is a strong implicit assumption here that the current model they use
is better for users than the model LLVM uses, and that aligning these
models in *that* direction ends up better from usings than aligning models
in the other direction.
IE make ToT more appealing to follow, have folks follow that.
Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but it needs a lot more evidence :)
The evidence i see so far is that they spend time trying to get disparate
projects to use a single version of LLVM, but i also have seen no evidence
that any of the projects using stable releases would ever align their
policies *anyway*, so they still have that problem no matter what you do to
If that is the real concern, i think the entire discussion is misplaced.
Because that problem is solely one of API compatibility between releases.
If there are other concerns, it'd be good to catalogue them :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev