[LLVMdev] overflow + saturation stuff

[Gordon Henriksen]

On 2009-02-08, at 05:59, Jonas Maebe wrote:

> The proposal suggests to change/split the existing sub/add/mul  
> opcodes. This makes me wonder to what extent it is (currently, or  
> ever) advisable for an external compiler to generate LLVM IR. Is  
> there a plan to stabilise at some point and guarantee backwards  
> compatibility to a certain extent, or should compilers that are not  
> integrated in the LLVM infrastructure always target one particular  
> release of LLVM?


LLVM does guarantee backwards compatibility with compiled bitcode. The  
C++ interfaces are not frozen, so you may need to upgrade code  
targeting LLVM when upgrading; reasonable efforts are made to avoid  
making this process painful. Of course, what code is contributed to  
the project will be maintained through these changes.

— Gordon