Svadev mailing list

[John Criswell <criswell AT illinois.edu>]

On 5/25/12 6:13 PM, David Keaton wrote:
> On 05/25/2012 03:16 PM, John Criswell wrote:
> > I'm open to the idea of updating SAFECode to LLVM 3.1
> > or LLVM mainline some time during the summer.
>        I would suggest sticking to a particular LLVM version rather than
> tracking the mainline.  My experience with the mainline is that it
> breaks my code about every two weeks.  By updating to LLVM 3.1 rather
> than the mainline, you can control when you pay the cost of updating in
> the future.

Normally, I'd agree, and I've had worse experiences than that tracking 
LLVM mainline in the past.  During the LLVM 1.9 to LLVM 2.0 transition, 
the API changes on mainline broke my SAFECode build every day.  That's 
when I decided that we'd stick to a particular LLVM release.

That said, API changes in mainline are far less frequent than in those 
days, and there are some incentives for tracking mainline (e.g., a GSoC 
student will be working on common infrastructure for SAFECode/ASan; if 
that gets committed to LLVM mainline, we'll need to update to LLVM 
mainline to use it).

So, we'll see how things go.  I think the time for an upgrade will be 
coming soon, but it's not obvious to me yet exactly when we should make 
the jump.

Do others on the list have thoughts on this?  Is everyone happy with 
LLVM 3.0, or is it causing problems with using SAFECode?

-- John T.

>                                         David
> _______________________________________________
> svadev mailing list
> svadev AT cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/svadev