From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valentin Korenblit Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 16:34:48 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 6/8] llvm: bump to version 6.0.0 In-Reply-To: <20180608225932.13127-7-joseph.kogut@gmail.com> References: <20180608225932.13127-1-joseph.kogut@gmail.com> <20180608225932.13127-7-joseph.kogut@gmail.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Joseph, all, On 09/06/2018 00:59, Joseph Kogut wrote: > Signed-off-by: Joseph Kogut > --- > ...type-in-ORC-readMem-client-interface.patch | 37 ------------------- > package/llvm/llvm.hash | 2 +- > package/llvm/llvm.mk | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 package/llvm/0001-Fix-return-type-in-ORC-readMem-client-interface.patch > > -LLVM_VERSION = 5.0.2 > +LLVM_VERSION = 6.0.0 > LLVM_SITE = http://llvm.org/releases/$(LLVM_VERSION) > LLVM_SOURCE = llvm-$(LLVM_VERSION).src.tar.xz > LLVM_LICENSE = NCSA Tested-by: Valentin Korenblit I've applied the patch and tested llvmpipe on ARM and x86. My only doubt is whether we should also keep llvm 5 (no longer mantained). Apparently there haven't been changes in the API, most changes are related to backends: https://releases.llvm.org/6.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html. I ask this question because this topic was discussed during the meeting: https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysFOSDEM2018#LLVM.2FClang I believe we could just bump to 6.0.0 as currently there is only Mesa using this package. Best regards, Valentin