ABataev added a comment. In D83268#2135724 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135724>, @jdoerfert 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?). > > > 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? Use of the new library with the previous version of the compiler. 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
