Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:39:34 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> To: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> Cc: Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Ports FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces! Message-ID: <410ACCF2-D1E6-45D9-AF93-B5625682644A@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <042CBED1-5257-4517-B040-9EE760BE7FE1@cederstrand.dk> References: <50E97457.7050809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <34476030-BDBF-46C4-8E7D-60FDC53B076A@FreeBSD.org> <50E9B385.9060104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <042CBED1-5257-4517-B040-9EE760BE7FE1@cederstrand.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 Jan 2013, at 20:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > You can't seriously blame LLVM for making progress. If ports rely on a = specific version of LLVM, it would be far better to create devel/llvm31, = devel/llvm32 etc. Well, I can (and, even with my LLVM committer hat on, do) blame LLVM for = not having a sensible deprecation strategy. Breaking the ABI is = unavoidable in a C++ project (unless you invent an entire metalanguage = on top of C++, as Qt does) but breaking the API is a huge pain, when it = would be no more effort in most cases to stick on a deprecation = attribute telling people what they should be using instead. Having llvm31, llvm32, and so on ports is likely to be unavoidable, as = lots of external projects end up depending on older versions of LLVM. = It would be worth splitting out clang from these. A few = refactoring-type tools depend on old versions of clang, but most = commonly people will be using latest clang with latest LLVM, plus = something else with old LLVM. =20 David=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?410ACCF2-D1E6-45D9-AF93-B5625682644A>