ABataev added a comment. In D83268#2135954 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83268#2135954>, @JonChesterfield wrote:
> 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. Answered already: the previous version of the compiler with the new version of the runtime. 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
