[Release-testers] [llvm-dev] [lldb-dev] [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers
Michael Kuperstein via Release-testers
release-testers at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jun 13 10:30:52 PDT 2016
It would probably better for whoever wrote this text to pipe in, but I
think the idea is that (X+1).0 is supposed to be a kind of a "bridge"
That is, if you have legacy IR files that contain dropped features, or if
the IR format changed significantly, you can still use the (X+1).0
auto-upgrade (which may be fairly complex) to read them, but this
auto-upgrade complexity may be dropped in (X+1).1.
I'm not completely sure this makes sense, but this is how I've always
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 13 June 2016 at 18:02, Rafael Espíndola <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> > It is documented at
> > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility
> This is weird...
> "The bitcode format produced by a X.Y release will be readable by all
> following X.Z releases and the (X+1).0 release."
> Why (x+1).0 ?
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Release-testers