[LLVMdev] LLVMContext: Suggestions for API Changes
devlists at shadowlab.org
Wed Jul 15 11:34:02 PDT 2009
Le 15 juil. 09 à 20:26, John Criswell a écrit :
> Owen Anderson wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:53 AM, John Criswell wrote:
>>> Owen Anderson wrote:
>>>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 7:44 AM, John Criswell wrote:
>>>>> 1) If technically possible, add the new API first, get it working,
>>>>> llvmdev describing the old and new APIs, provide some lead time
>>>>> people to change over, and then remove the old APIs. This makes
>>>>> easier to plan when I fix problems due to LLVM API changes and
>>>>> when I
>>>>> can work on our own bugs. :)
>>>> The high-level change was already described and discussed on
>>> First, did you discuss it or announce it? There's a difference.
>>> With its high traffic volume, I don't read all llvmdev mails
>>> anymore. I
>>> pick and choose based on their subject lines. A subject entitled
>>> Change: LLVMContext" will probably get my attention while
>>> "Multi-threading support for LLVM" will not.
>> How about a subject line "[LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE: LLVMContext"?
> Yes, that particular message fits the first criterion: it announces
> change in the subject line. I thought you might have been referring
> other emails about LLVMContext that I didn't see, but you weren't; you
> were referring to the above message.
> However, IMHO, the message from June doesn't clearly state what is to
> change. It tells me static methods will be removed, but it doesn't
> me where they are re-implemented. It assumes I can infer that by
> understanding how LLVM uniques values.
> -- John T.
Wasn't this tips not enough ?
"To ease this transition, I have added a getGlobalContext() API. If
you're only ever planning to use LLVM on a single thread, it will be
completely safe to simply pass this value to every API that takes an
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev