[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc-4-2 development branch is open

[Chris Lattner]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Duncan Sands wrote:
> I am in favour of changing markers to "/* LLVM LOCAL <begin|end> */".
> Shall I just do it?

Sure, go for it.

>> 3) This svn module is for GCC-4.2 based front end for LLVM. Please do
>> not check-in code from FSF GCC mainline (which uses 4.3 as version
>> number). If you need a LLVM front end based on GCC 4.3, please create
>> separate llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4-3 module.
>
> Is back-porting fixes from 4.3 OK?

It depends: today, yes, that's fine.  Tomorrow (or, really soon now) no, 
that's not ok.  We have a strong desire to keep llvm-gcc free of gpl v3 
for the time being.  As such, when GCC goes GPL v3 (which I hear is any 
day now), we won't be able to backport fixes from it. :(

Luckily, GCC 4.2 was very recently released, so it's pretty fresh for the 
time being.

Going forward, there is a low, but non-zero, chance that this might 
change.  Alternatively, interested parties could start their own 
llvm-gcc-4.3 tree if they'd like.

>> 5) There are many GCC tree structure changes that I have not noticed
>> yet.
>
> I think STRING_CONSTANT is actually a constant in 4.2, which means all
> those tests for "is it a constant or a STRING_CONSTANT" in llvm-convert
> can be simplified.

Nice!

>> Note, llvm-gcc-4-2 does not replace llvm-gcc-4-0. Current llvm-gcc FE
>> (which is based on GCC-4.0) will be added in llvm svn at llvm.org/svn/
>> llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4-0. I have not picked up llvm-gcc-4-0 check-ins
>> done in last few days in initial llvm-gcc-4-2 checkin.
>
> What to do about new patches to 4.0?  Should we insist that they also be
> applied to 4.2, if it makes sense to do so?

Sure, I think that makes sense.  Right now, 4.2 is pretty broken.  When it 
can build and bootstrap itself, I think that policy makes sense.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/