foad added a comment. In D71213#1780088 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71213#1780088>, @gchatelet wrote:
> In D71213#1779841 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71213#1779841>, @foad wrote: > > > @gchatelet in general would it be possible to make changes like this in a > > backwards-compatible way, or in two stages without a "flag day" change? We > > have out-of-tree users of CreateMemSet and it's awkward to change them all > > at exactly the same time as we merge in this change from upstream llvm, and > > we have had the same problem with other MaybeAlign changes recently. I > > realise that LLVM doesn't make any official promises about API stability. > > > Thx for letting me know @foad . I'll make sure to keep the old API with a > deprecation message from now on. > Do you have any other suggestions on how to make this less painful for > out-of-tree users? I'm afraid that the cleanup phase (removal of deprecated > function) will be disruptive as well. Removing deprecated functions is generally OK, as long as it happens *after* the preferred function is introduced, so we have time to switch over. In the specific case of functions taking `Align` instead of `unsigned`, perhaps you could start off allowing implicit conversion from `unsigned` to `Align` and then remove it later, when all callers have been updated? Or perhaps it's too late for that now. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
