Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" > > To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" , > > "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" > > Cc: "r jordans"

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" > > To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" , > > "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" > > Cc: "r jordans"

Re: [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

. > > > To clarify my point: I don't have a particular opinion about bumping the major number for whatever other reason than breaking the compatibility, but I'd probably suggest that we rewrite the compatibility policy to say something like "The current LLVM version support loading any bitcode sinc

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

>> I think that this is the right approach, and we happen to have a natural >> forcing function here: opaque pointer types. I think we should increment the >> major version number when opaque pointer types are here, as it will be a >> major breaking change, and then we'll have a version 4.0. Until

[lldb-dev] [Bug 28127] New: lldb-server broken when LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28127 Bug ID: 28127 Summary: lldb-server broken when LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB=ON Product: lldb Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" >> > To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" < >

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

Thank you for raising this question! I think 3.10 makes sense until we have a strong enough breaking change (in anything, not just LLVM bit code) to warrant bumping to 4.0. ~Aaron On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev wrote: > Breaking this out into a separate thread since i

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:32 AM Richard Smith via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" >> > To: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" < >> cfe

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev < cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:43 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < > cfe-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < >> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)

Hello there, First, I would like to say that I don't have any strong opinions on this matter: as mostly an user of LLVM, my basic concern is for me to be able to identify which version is the newest and configure it as easily as possible. That being said, I have a question about LLVM's versioning