jdoerfert added a comment. In D83268#2135081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135081>, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> This is definitely not NFC and breaks API compatibility (but apparently > nobody cares anymore?). This is the device RTL. I am not aware we (want to) keep the API stable. If we are, I'm not sure why: - Dynamic linking (among other things) is not really an option so people that link against the device runtime (should) do so statically. - Linking against an old device runtime with a new clang seems unreasonable to me. If you replace clang you must replace the static runtime as the new clang might use new functions. In D83268#2135655 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135655>, @ABataev wrote: > In D83268#2135081 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135081>, @Hahnfeld wrote: > > > This is definitely not NFC and breaks API compatibility (but apparently > > nobody cares anymore?). > > > +1. Better to introduce new entry points and mark these ones as deprecated. Same response as above. What is the use case here which we want to continue to support? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
