Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "clang_has_version_patchlevel".
2016 Jun 28
0
[Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
...months and y for the "dot" releases in between,
let's take it to a code review:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821
What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in
interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set
up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL).
- Hans
2016 Jun 29
1
[cfe-dev] [Openmp-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
...t; releases in between,
> let's take it to a code review:
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21821
>
> What angles am I missing? I'm sure this can break the world in
> interesting ways. (It looks like Clang's cmake config is already set
> up for this though, by checking CLANG_HAS_VERSION_PATCHLEVEL).
For one thing, I can't find the patch on the mailing list ;). I'm guessing
you missed adding llvm-commits as a subscriber?
2016 Jun 28
2
[Openmp-dev] [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] What version comes after 3.9? (Was: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers)
On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I think I agree with Chris with 3.10 being the worst possible outcome.
>
> I'd be interested to understand why you or Chris thing 3.10 is the worst possible outcome.
>
> Chris has said it is because he thinks we'll never change the "3”,
Yes, that is one reason.