Which revision of clang for LLVM2.5?


Which revision of clang is safe to build against LLVM 2.5? Just tried on the current svn and got a whole range of build errors for clang.

If there is none, then which is safe against 2.4?


Clang follows ToT LLVM fairly closely, you might be best trying to find the version that matches some version around then :frowning:

Or, probably for the best, just use both versions out of current svn.


Do you have a particular reason for using LLVM 2.5? Since you are already checking out the source, why not just use LLVM top of tree with clang top of tree. This should always work, and if not its a bug and we are generally quite quick to fix it.

If you really want to do this all someone needs to do is find the revision where we tagged LLVM 2.5, checking out that clang revision should work fine with that LLVM.

  • Daniel

That’s what I’ve been doing so far, however it’s caught me out on several occasions. I’m maintaining a project that uses LLVM quite extensively, with other developers, across two platforms. Every time I move to a new development machine and check out & rebuild the latest LLVM/clang svn, I have to make minor updates to my own code to match the changes in the LLVM/clang C++ API. Naturally, that means that every other development machine also has to check out & rebuild the latest svn at the same time…

I guess I could embed the LLVM/Clang source tree into my own project, but I’d rather not if possible. So I was hoping to find a ‘reference version’ that I could work my own code against, until clang gets folded into a stable LLVM release. I figured there might be an earlier revision in the svn history that would conform to LLVM release 2.4/2.5.

Well, it looks like 2.5 was tagged at r65926, try grabbing that version of clang?


  • Daniel

Grabbing r65926 of both llvm & clang built - thanks!

I don’t know why, I had just assumed they weren’t using the same revision numbers.