[cfe-dev] Which revision of clang for LLVM2.5?

[Graham Wakefield]

That's what I've been doing so far, however it's caught me out on  
several occasions. I'm maintaining a project that uses LLVM quite  
extensively, with other developers, across two platforms. Every time I  
move to a new development machine and check out & rebuild the latest  
LLVM/clang svn, I have to make minor updates to my own code to match  
the changes in the LLVM/clang C++ API. Naturally, that means that  
every other development machine also has to check out & rebuild the  
latest svn at the same time...

I guess I could embed the LLVM/Clang source tree into my own project,  
but I'd rather not if possible. So I was hoping to find a 'reference  
version' that I could work my own code against, until clang gets  
folded into a stable LLVM release. I figured there might be an earlier  
revision in the svn history that would conform to LLVM release 2.4/2.5.

On Mar 13, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:

> Do you have a particular reason for using LLVM 2.5? Since you are  
> already checking out the source, why not just use LLVM top of tree  
> with clang top of tree. This should always work, and if not its a  
> bug and we are generally quite quick to fix it.
>
> If you really want to do this all someone needs to do is find the  
> revision where we tagged LLVM 2.5, checking out that clang revision  
> should work fine with that LLVM.
>
>  - Daniel
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Graham Wakefield <lists at grahamwakefield.net 
> > wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Which revision of clang is safe to build against LLVM 2.5?  Just tried
> on the current svn and got a whole range of build errors for clang.
>
> If there is none, then which is safe against 2.4?
>
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20090313/1d47d807/attachment.html>