Jean-Daniel Dupas
2009-Jul-15 17:56 UTC
[LLVMdev] LLVMContext: Suggestions for API Changes
Le 15 juil. 09 à 19:07, Owen Anderson a écrit :> > On Jul 15, 2009, at 9:53 AM, John Criswell wrote: > >> Owen Anderson wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 7:44 AM, John Criswell wrote: >>> >>>> 1) If technically possible, add the new API first, get it working, >>>> email >>>> llvmdev describing the old and new APIs, provide some lead time for >>>> people to change over, and then remove the old APIs. This makes it >>>> easier to plan when I fix problems due to LLVM API changes and >>>> when I >>>> can work on our own bugs. :) >>>> >>> >>> The high-level change was already described and discussed on >>> LLVMdev. >>> >> First, did you discuss it or announce it? There's a difference. >> >> With its high traffic volume, I don't read all llvmdev mails >> anymore. I >> pick and choose based on their subject lines. A subject entitled >> "API >> Change: LLVMContext" will probably get my attention while >> "Multi-threading support for LLVM" will not. > > How about a subject line "[LLVMdev] MAJOR API CHANGE: LLVMContext"?You mean like this subject ? http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/023505.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090715/a6884799/attachment.html>
On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:> > You mean like this subject ? > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/023505.html >Notice the sender line on that email... ;-) --Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090715/ac8d3f6f/attachment.html>
Owen Anderson wrote:> On Jul 15, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: >> >> You mean like this subject ? >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-June/023505.html > > Notice the sender line on that email... ;-)Yes, you indeed announced that change, but as John rightfully remarked, the announcement gave little detail. For LLVM users like me, who just, well, *use* LLVM, this wasn't enough. Maybe it's not time to document the changes yet, and maybe everybody but the LLVM developers should stop using LLVM from svn for a while until the API stabilizes again. That's fine with me. I can only politely ask that at some point someone please provide us with the information that we need to port our stuff to the new API so that we don't have to spend days digging through the LLVM source code. ;-) Thanks, Albert -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag