On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org>, > > "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" <openmp-...@lists.llvm.org> > > Cc: "r jordans" <r.jord...@tue.nl>, "Paul Robinson" < > paul_robin...@playstation.sony.com> > > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:54:19 PM > > Subject: [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] > Release plan and call for testers) > > > > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a > > separate > > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > > > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as > > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally > > surprised by both. > > > > Brain-dump so far: > > > > - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0 > > comes after 3.9. > > > > - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major > > version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there > > aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10. > > > > - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions, > > but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine. > > > > - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant IR > > change? > > I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural > forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should increment > the major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as it will be > a major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0. Until then, > unless something else breaking comes up, 3.10 sounds fine to me. > At least naively, I'd expect opaque pointer types to be backwards compatible (ie: we can load old bitcode and just strip all the pointer types and bitcasts). But perhaps it still meets the bar of a big change & may be worth shedding all the backwards compatibility weight sooner rather than later after the change, for sure. (as to the main issue - yeah, I tend to agree with you/Mehdi, etc - go to 3.10 and so on, until we decide it's worth breaking back-compat - do we need to update any wording about our back-compat guarantee that says we won't do the inverse (4.3 -> 5.0 because we decide we have another breaking change), though? Since we'll demonstrated that primary version bumps aren't on a strict ~5 year cycle anymore - probably don't need to do anything, but just a thought) - Dave > > -Hal > > > > > - We've never had an x.10 version before; maybe that would be > > confusing? Perhaps it's simply time to move on (like Linux 2.6.39 -> > > 3.0 and 3.19 -> 4.0). > > > > - Since we do time-based rather than feature-based releases, the > > major > > version number shouldn't mean anything special anyway (e.g. big IR > > changes or not), so 4.0? > > > > - Everyone knows that after 9 comes 10, so 3.10 it is. The version is > > a tuple after all. > > > > - Let's go for 4.0 now, and 5.0 after that. Then the "dot"-releases > > in > > between would correspond to minor version bumps, which would make > > sense (and catch up with GCC!). > > > > - It's just a number, no big deal; flip a coin or something. > > > > What do you think? > > > > - Hans > > > > > > [1]. > > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ir-backwards-compatibility > > _______________________________________________ > > cfe-dev mailing list > > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev > > > > -- > Hal Finkel > Assistant Computational Scientist > Leadership Computing Facility > Argonne National Laboratory > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
