On 03/14/2013 03:45 PM, Brad King wrote:
On 03/13/2013 05:33 PM, Damien Buhl wrote:
@Brad King : What do you think about LIBCLANG_LIBRARY_VERSION as a
concatenation of :
CINDEX_VERSION_MAJOR.CINDEX_VERSION_MINOR.CLANG_VERSION_MAJOR.CLANG_VERSION_MINOR
? Isn't it a problem that patch and tweak version of the lib are the
major, minor of clang ?
This is a decision for Clang/libclang folks to make, not me.
You are right, and it's good that you point it out, so that they feel
concerned, because in my mail I'm only adressing you on the question.
The goal is to provide a version number that applications can use
to ensure the libclang they find will meet their needs. The
number is for the interface of libclang, so CINDEX_VERSION_*
makes sense there IIRC.
I'm not familiar enough with the relative versioning of Clang to
libclang to make a specific recommendation on CLANG_VERSION_*
components.
Yes I'm also a bit unsure of what they prefer and want, but I especially
asked you because perhaps you would have seen something strange in this
behaviour.
Thank you for all the advices until now. And thanks for CMake. :)
--
Damien Buhl
alias daminetreg
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
