[LLVMdev] [rfc] "alias weak" X "weak alias"

[Sean Silva]

It seems kind of important to know what our compatibility promise is for
the IR, since that is one of LLVM's few places where there is some sort of
compatibility guarantee.

I feel we should have it documented (in
http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html ?) so that it doesn't slip like
this.

Maybe this discussion is worth its own thread on llvmdev? I mean, we have
two highly experienced developers in this thread with highly diverging
opinions.

-- Sean Silva


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > I thought the policy was:
> >
> > 1. Provide bitcode autoupgrade until next LLVM release
> > 2. Provide text autograde until next major LLVM release
> >
> > I'm sure I may be wrong, though... There were precedents in the past -
> > you may want to look into them.
>
> I am sure we provide bitcode autougrade until the next major release,
> since the bitcode reader is full of FIXME notes for 4.0.
>
> We don't seem to provide text autoupgrade unless there a particular
> demand for it. For example, when linkonce_odr_auto_hide was removed
> all text parsing support for it went away in a single commit. For
> linker_private we got upgrade support for it, but as a special case,
> with a warning and we intend to drop it as soon as 3.5 branches.
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140614/e4f1baa0/attachment.html>