On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < >> lldb-dev@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. >>> >> >> +1, complete agreement. >> > > While I'm not sure opaque pointer types are going to increment versions > I'm also in agreement that 3.10 is the right way to go. > +1 -- Sean Silva > > -eric > > >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-dev mailing list >> cfe-...@lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
