[lldb-dev] [Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch

[Tom Stellard via lldb-dev]

On 02/06/2019 10:57 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 14:09 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> On 02/05/2019 10:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>>> On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:
>>>>> On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release.  I have updated the
>>>>>>>>> version and pushed a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427,
>>>>>>>>> which is the only bug we will be fixing in this release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this is an ABI breaking changing and also we are introducing a
>>>>>>>>> minor version for the first time, please take some time to test the
>>>>>>>>> branch and make sure everything works as expected.  I'm going
>>>>>>>>> to try to do the 7.1.0-rc1 release some time after 8.0.0-rc2, once the
>>>>>>>>> activity around the release calms down a little.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The SOVERSION is still '7'.  Maybe we should force it to '7.1' here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should already be changed.  This is what I get when I build:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [tstellar at llvm llvm-build]$ objdump -p lib/libLLVM-7.1.so | grep SONAME
>>>>>>>   SONAME               libLLVM-7.1.so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about SOVERSION of shared libs from BUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON. 
>>>>>> The one defined in llvm_add_library() function:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       set_target_properties(${name}
>>>>>>         PROPERTIES
>>>>>>         # Since 4.0.0, the ABI version is indicated by the major version
>>>>>>         SOVERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX}
>>>>>>         VERSION ${LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR}${LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX})
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I see.  You are correct, we should change the soname on those.  I can
>>>>> fix this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This should be fixed now by r353247, can you re-test?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, though I don't think returning to '71' is a good idea.  It
>>> introduces a value that is technically larger than '8', and people
>>> running ldconfig(1) will get libs relinked to .so.71 all the time. 
>>> Putting a dot there should be safer.
>>>
>>
>> This is fixed now in r353348.  Can you test again?
>>
> 
> You forgot to update VERSION as well.
> 

This should be fixed now in r353565.  Let me know if there are any other issues.

-Tom