[PATCH] D13666: Add an (optional) identification block in the bitcode

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits]

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 8:00 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com <mailto:rafael.espindola at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> >> That make sense to you Rafael?
> >
> > I think we should have a single Epoc number. We should just remember
> > to update it once per release at least.
> 
> What would be the benefit over encoding the release number?
> 
> While the open source project would track it to a major release number, vendors of LLVM or users who have unrelated release processes might want to override the version numbers to totally unrelated things. Despite this, the bitcode has a fundamental and technical epoch. Its tracking of the major release is a matter of convention and policy of the open source project.

If the point is to stick with major release, that’s fine. 
I was reluctant to manually bump the epoch with *each* release (i.e. minor as well).

— 
Mehdi



>  
> 
> I'm always reluctant to mechanisms that need a manual intervention.
> 
> Mehdi
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rafael

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151022/11f95d98/attachment.html>