[LLVMdev] 3.4.1 Release Plans

Richard Smith richard at metafoo.co.uk
Thu Apr 3 11:46:38 PDT 2014


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote:

> On 3 April 2014 08:51, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It looks like this could be raised to 100% by restoring the prior order
>> of the llvm::Intrinsic enum?
>>
>
> Do we want to go that far?
>
> I'm not against it, I've done this before, but I'm just making sure we
> know what we're getting into.
>

Virtually all the intrinsics have been renumbered. Suppose some
dynamically-linked LLVM frontend tries to create a call to an 'fabs'
intrinsic. If the libLLVM DSO is upgraded from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1, they'll
start creating a 'floor' intrinsic instead. If we want to support people
using the C++ ABI and upgrading an LLVM DSO, I really don't think we can
change these enumerators.

If we keep the order in trunk, we'll have created a rule of which enum
> orders can't be changed (which messes up the code), if we change the stable
> branch only, we'll make it harder to backport and create further dot
> releases.
>
> By all means, now is the time to experiment (on stable branches), so if
> you want the latter, I won't oppose, but the former will face public
> opposition right and left, I predict.
>

I think the latter option is the right choice. The pain of preserving the
ABI belongs with our hard-working branch maintainers (and they always have
the option of rejecting a change because it would break the ABI).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140403/d52bc1f2/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list