llvm dev - Jul 2007 - [LLVMdev] CallInst API Changes Ready [was: Re: llvm-gcc-4-2 development branch is open]

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 18:55, David Greene wrote:
> I ask because I'm ready to commit the CallInst interface changes and it
> will break llvm-gcc.  There is no way to preserve the interfaces llvm-gcc
> needs because there are three places in the llvm-gcc code where
> the old interface conflicts with the new one (passing two Value*'s vs.
> passing two iterators to a template function).
>
> Again: when I commit the CallInst changes it will break llvm-gcc, and
> there's no way to avoid that.
>
> I can send an llvm-gcc patch for someone to apply, or if the current
> llvm-gcc is going to be put under subversion soon I can wait for that and
> commit the changes myself.  Either way, we will want the CallInst and
> llvm-gcc changes to happen as close together in time as possible to
> minimize the chance of disrupting someone's work.
Haven't heard anything back on this.  I'd like to get these changes in
before they become bitrotted.

                                               -Dave

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, David Greene wrote:
>> I can send an llvm-gcc patch for someone to apply, or if the current
>> llvm-gcc is going to be put under subversion soon I can wait for that
and
>> commit the changes myself.  Either way, we will want the CallInst and
>> llvm-gcc changes to happen as close together in time as possible to
>> minimize the chance of disrupting someone's work.
>
> Haven't heard anything back on this.  I'd like to get these changes
in
> before they become bitrotted.
Where is the llvm-gcc patch?  It would be best if we get the llvm changes 
in first, then independently commit the llvm-gcc changes.  This means that 
LLVM should have both APIs while llvm-gcc is in an intermediate state.

-Chris

-- 
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/

On Tuesday 14 January 2003 19:23, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > Haven't heard anything back on this.  I'd like to get these
changes in
> > before they become bitrotted.
>
> Where is the llvm-gcc patch?  It would be best if we get the llvm changes
> in first, then independently commit the llvm-gcc changes.  This means that
> LLVM should have both APIs while llvm-gcc is in an intermediate state.
I haven't posted the patch yet.  I was waiting to get feedback on whether
I should wait for the move of the llvm-gcc tree or post the patch for
someone else to apply.

We cannot have both API's simultaneously due to conflicts between the
two iterator template interface and the two Value* interface.  That's why
these need to happen as close together as possible.

                                               -Dave