Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sync with LLVM release/16.x #11

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Sync with LLVM release/16.x #11

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kabeor
Copy link
Member

@kabeor kabeor commented May 30, 2023

No description provided.

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented May 30, 2023

Build failed, waitting until next week's commit sync.

@XVilka XVilka requested a review from Rot127 May 30, 2023 14:00
@Rot127
Copy link
Collaborator

Rot127 commented May 30, 2023

Would propose to get #10 done first. After it is merged I do a rebase onto the newest release/16.x again.

@github-actions github-actions bot force-pushed the release/16.x branch 2 times, most recently from 7ebd517 to 7f34a20 Compare June 19, 2023 00:54
@github-actions github-actions bot force-pushed the release/16.x branch 2 times, most recently from dcff584 to b4479f4 Compare July 3, 2023 01:01
@Rot127
Copy link
Collaborator

Rot127 commented Jul 4, 2023

As @XVilka suggested we can just skip v16 and go directly to v17. @KaBeo any opjections?

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Jul 4, 2023

@Rot127 Sure, we can do that easily with CI now.

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Jul 4, 2023

Btw, CI failed since https://github.com/capstone-engine/llvm-capstone/actions/runs/5040615865, we should make sure it work before rebase to v17.

@Rot127
Copy link
Collaborator

Rot127 commented Jul 5, 2023

@kabeor The current release/16.x branch has our auto-sync changes as well, if I see this correctly. Are you fine if we keep the release/16.x and future LLVM-release branches clean from auto-sync stuff and rebase the auto-sync onto it?

I think resolving conflicts is easier this way.
Also we do not accidentally merge LLVM stuff and overwrite auto-sync changes.

To make conflict resolving even easier, we can also think about squashing the auto-sync branch before every big rebase.

So in we end up with something like:

                 sqaush & rebase & rename
                 onto release/16.X
              +------------------------------>  auto-sync-16.X    <---- new PRs must go here.
              |                                        |
              |                                 (release/16.X)
             ...
          [commit C]
          [commit B]
          [commit A] 
          (auto-sync)

Might not be the best idea. Because it destroys the commit history for more convenience.

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Jul 6, 2023

@Rot127

Are you fine if we keep the release/16.x and future LLVM-release branches clean from auto-sync stuff and rebase the auto-sync onto it?

Yes, that would be great. I should have set the release/x.x branch to be protected.

@XVilka
Copy link
Collaborator

XVilka commented Jul 27, 2023

@kabeor @Rot127 LLVM just branched off to 17.x, I guess it's time to port this work on top of it. From what I saw in the git changes it shouldn't affect ARM and PPC, but will definetitely affect AArch64.

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Jul 30, 2023

Yep. Btw, when LLVM 17 offical version been released, the CI will auto creates a branch release/17.x.

@Rot127
Copy link
Collaborator

Rot127 commented Jul 31, 2023

@kabeor Fancy! Will it include our changes? Or be equivalent to the LLVM release?

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Aug 1, 2023

@Rot127 It will just include llvm code. Any our changes still need to be merged into auto-sync.

@XVilka
Copy link
Collaborator

XVilka commented Sep 21, 2023

@kabeor
Copy link
Member Author

kabeor commented Sep 23, 2023

Let's see if CI works next Monday.

@Rot127
Copy link
Collaborator

Rot127 commented Mar 9, 2024

closing this because we work on LLVM 18 now
#45

@Rot127 Rot127 closed this Mar 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants