JonChesterfield added a comment. In D83268#2135938 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135938>, @ABataev wrote:
> > @Hahnfeld @ABataev - are you sufficiently persuaded that preserving the > > current interface is not worth the development cost? > > No, I'm not. Long before that, we relied on the API stability and already > have some runtime calls marked as deprecated. Especially taking into account, > that libomp can be built separately. Yes, the existing v# naming and deprecated comments should also go. What can libomp be built by separately? Nvcc and gcc don't use this runtime. That leaves us with downstream proprietary compilers derived from clang that are already stuck carrying extensive compatibility patches and usually ship as one large toolchain blob which only needs to be internally self consistent. 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
