www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - Supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6

reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
Hi all,
   We now support 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 5.0 ... that's 7 
versions of LLVM, quite a bunch!

How long do we want to keep supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6? Can we 
remove support from LDC >= 1.4?

Not that it is bothering me a whole lot, but for example looking 
at the debuginfo code is annoying with all the #ifdef'ing.
Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support would also save a bit of TravisCI 
time.

cheers,
   Johan
Jul 14 2017
next sibling parent reply kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 How long do we want to keep supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6? Can we 
 remove support from LDC >= 1.4?

 Not that it is bothering me a whole lot, but for example 
 looking at the debuginfo code is annoying with all the 
 #ifdef'ing.
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support would also save a bit of TravisCI 
 time.


Fine with me. Ubuntu 14.04 is still on unsupported LLVM 3.4, 
16.04 already on LLVM 3.8, and SPIR-V apparently not restricted 
to 3.6 anymore.
Jul 14 2017
parent reply David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc <digitalmars-d-ldc puremagic.com> writes:
I was going to suggest culling < 3.7 support as well.

I'm still toying with the idea of going with a vendored LLVM so we can 
more efficiently support work like Android, SPIR-V, etc., but for now I 
guess there isn't really a reason to throw a wrench into the distro 
packaging process.

  — David

On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:31, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:


 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 How long do we want to keep supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6? Can we 
 remove support from LDC >= 1.4?

 Not that it is bothering me a whole lot, but for example looking at 
 the debuginfo code is annoying with all the #ifdef'ing.
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support would also save a bit of TravisCI time.


 Fine with me. Ubuntu 14.04 is still on unsupported LLVM 3.4, 16.04 
 already on LLVM 3.8, and SPIR-V apparently not restricted to 3.6 
 anymore.
Jul 14 2017
next sibling parent reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
Johan: +1
David: +1
kinke: +1

Kay, what do you think? Is dropping LLVM < 3.7 OK for your stuff?


On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 12:42:34 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I was going to suggest culling < 3.7 support as well.

 I'm still toying with the idea of going with a vendored LLVM so 
 we can more efficiently support work like Android, SPIR-V, 
 etc., but for now I guess there isn't really a reason to throw 
 a wrench into the distro packaging process.

  — David

 On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:31, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:


 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 How long do we want to keep supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6? Can 
 we remove support from LDC >= 1.4?

 Not that it is bothering me a whole lot, but for example 
 looking at the debuginfo code is annoying with all the 
 #ifdef'ing.
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support would also save a bit of TravisCI 
 time.


 Fine with me. Ubuntu 14.04 is still on unsupported LLVM 3.4, 
 16.04 already on LLVM 3.8, and SPIR-V apparently not 
 restricted to 3.6 anymore.
Jul 14 2017
next sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 13:51:39 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 Johan: +1
 David: +1
 kinke: +1

 Kay, what do you think? Is dropping LLVM < 3.7 OK for your 
 stuff?


 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 12:42:34 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I was going to suggest culling < 3.7 support as well.

 I'm still toying with the idea of going with a vendored LLVM 
 so we can more efficiently support work like Android, SPIR-V, 
 etc., but for now I guess there isn't really a reason to throw 
 a wrench into the distro packaging process.

  — David

 On 14 Jul 2017, at 13:31, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:


 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 How long do we want to keep supporting LLVM 3.5 and 3.6? Can 
 we remove support from LDC >= 1.4?

 Not that it is bothering me a whole lot, but for example 
 looking at the debuginfo code is annoying with all the 
 #ifdef'ing.
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support would also save a bit of 
 TravisCI time.


 Fine with me. Ubuntu 14.04 is still on unsupported LLVM 3.4, 
 16.04 already on LLVM 3.8, and SPIR-V apparently not 
 restricted to 3.6 anymore.






An ancillary request, can someone with an ARM board put up a 
native linux/armhf build for 1.3.0?  The last time we did, 1.1.0, 
it got 60% of the download count of the Win32 build:

http://www.somsubhra.com/github-release-stats/?username=ldc-developers&repository=ldc

As for llvm, no problem with dropping the old ones.
Jul 14 2017
prev sibling parent Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator hotmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 13:51:39 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 Johan: +1
 David: +1
 kinke: +1

 Kay, what do you think? Is dropping LLVM < 3.7 OK for your 
 stuff?


+1

SPIRV is master only.

The only thing I remember was that  Pursche was trying to do some 
PS4 stuff on an old LLVM almost exactly a year ago, but I haven't 
heard anything recent.
Jul 14 2017
prev sibling parent Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario gmx.de> writes:
On 14.07.2017 14:42, David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 I was going to suggest culling < 3.7 support as well.
 
 I'm still toying with the idea of going with a vendored LLVM so we can 
 more efficiently support work like Android, SPIR-V, etc., but for now I 
 guess there isn't really a reason to throw a wrench into the distro 
 packaging process.


That could also help getting a D specific language identifier into 
CodeView debug information to support mago with the VS Concord debug 
engine.

I just filed a bug report against LLVM 
(https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33899) to have this added to 
master, but it won't help for releases build against older LLVM versions.
Jul 23 2017
prev sibling parent reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support


Really nice that it's gone from master.
OK to remove it from ltsmaster then too, right?

- Johan
Jul 30 2017
next sibling parent kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Sunday, 30 July 2017 at 20:02:29 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support


 Really nice that it's gone from master.
 OK to remove it from ltsmaster then too, right?


IMO, yes.
Jul 30 2017
prev sibling parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 30 July 2017 at 20:02:29 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 11:49:13 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 
 Culling 3.5 and 3.6 support


 Really nice that it's gone from master.
 OK to remove it from ltsmaster then too, right?

 - Johan


I build ltsmaster on Android/ARM against llvm 4.0.1, haven't had 
a problem.  Since it's up to date with the latest llvm, I see no 
reason to support the really old versions.
Jul 30 2017