jrtc27 added a comment. In D132486#3743461 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D132486#3743461>, @h-vetinari wrote:
> Thanks for the review. Given that you have concerns, could you voice them in > a larger forum > (https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rationale-for-removing-versioned-libclang-middle-ground-to-keep-it-behind-option/64410), > where so far the direction was in favour of going back to the status of LLVM > 14 (but with an opt-out for those who prefer equality). My concerns have already been raised by others in that thread and related issues, I see no point in restating them yet again. I don't see consensus, I see a handful of people discussing reverting a change that broke a whole bunch of assumptions made by real-world code. ================ Comment at: clang/CMakeLists.txt:467 +option(CLANG_FORCE_MATCHING_LIBCLANG_SOVERSION + "Force the SOVERSION of libclang to be equal to CLANG_MAJOR" OFF) + ---------------- h-vetinari wrote: > jrtc27 wrote: > > OFF by default changes behaviour, which seems irresponsible so late in the > > release cycle > I disagree. This is the status of the last released version. It's the status of the last release candidate, something which downstreams are encouraged to consume early in order to give feedback. If we only need to care about the last released version when making changes then what's the point of having a release branch with policies around what's ok to backport? ================ Comment at: clang/tools/libclang/CMakeLists.txt:14-17 +# TODO: harmonize usage of LIBCLANG_SOVERSION / LIBCLANG_LIBARY_VERSION +# below; this was added under time-pressure to avoid reverting the +# better default from LLVM 14 for LLVM 15.0.0-rc3, hence no time +# to clean up previous inconsistencies. ---------------- h-vetinari wrote: > jrtc27 wrote: > > This is highly subjective. Many believe the default was worse due to (a) > > confusion (b) technical issues when coinstalling multiple LLVM versions. > > Ping-ponging like this is just creating a mess. > The ping pong has not been released yet, and so it's "just" happening as part > of the development process so far. > > It's subjective how this changes ranks vis-à-vis someone's personal > preferences/priorities, but I'd argue it's objectively better from a > technical perspective, as it keeps strictly more information as otherwise. On > top of that we're solving (b) for those who do not want to make use of this > additional information, or are bothered by it. Except people package the rc's and get annoyed when major changes like this are made; if we ask for people to test things, then go and revert something significant at the last minute, that's not good practice. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D132486/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D132486 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
